Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Cooking Products, 51492-51548 [2022-15725]

Download as PDF 51492 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [EERE–2021–BT–TP–0023] RIN 1904–AF18 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Cooking Products Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule; technical correction. AGENCY: The U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is establishing a test procedure for a category of cooking products, i.e., conventional cooking tops, under a new appendix. The new test procedure adopts the latest version of the relevant industry standard for electric cooking tops with modifications. The modifications adapt the test method to gas cooking tops, normalize the energy use of each test cycle, include measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use, update certain test conditions, and clarify certain provisions. This final rule retitles the existing cooking products test procedure to specify that it is for microwave ovens only. This final rule also corrects the CFR following an incorrect amendatory instruction in a June 2022 final rule. DATES: The effective date of this rule is September 21, 2022. The final rule changes will be mandatory for representations of energy use or energy efficiency of a conventional cooking top on or after February 20, 2023. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on September 21, 2022. ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, webinar transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/ EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by email: jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1943. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following industry standards into appendix I1 to subpart B of part 430: International Electrotechnical Commission (‘‘IEC’’) 62301, ‘‘Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power’’, first edition, June 2005 (‘‘IEC 62301 First Edition’’). IEC 62301, ‘‘Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power’’, Edition 2.0, 2011–01 (‘‘IEC 62301 Second Edition’’). IEC 60350–2, ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs— Methods for measuring performance’’, Edition 2.1, 2021–05 (‘‘IEC 60350– 2:2021’’). Copies of IEC 62301 First Edition, IEC 62301 Second Edition and IEC 60350– 2:2021 can be obtained from the International Electrotechnical Commission at 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, or by going to webstore.ansi.org. See section IV.N of this document for further discussion of these standards. Technical Correction On June 1, 2022, DOE published the final rule ‘‘Test Procedures for Residential and Commercial Clothes Washers’’, effective on July 1, 2022 (87 FR 33316). One of the instructions was intended to update the IEC 62301 Second Edition entry in the centralized IBR section (10 CFR 430.3(p)(6)). However, the amendatory instruction referenced paragraph (o) instead of paragraph (p). (See 87 FR 33380.) This final rule, therefore, corrects that error. Table of Contents I. Authority and Background A. Authority B. Background II. Synopsis of the Final Rule III. Discussion A. General Comments B. Scope of Applicability C. Round Robin Test Results PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 D. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 60350–2:2021 for Measuring Energy Consumption 1. Water-Heating Test Methodology 2. Differences Between IEC 60350–2:2021 and Previous Versions E. Modifications to IEC 60350–2:2021 Methodology To Reduce Testing Burden 1. Test Vessel Selection for Electric Cooking Tops 2. Temperature Specifications 3. Determination of the Simmering Setting 4. Normalizing Per-Cycle Energy Use for the Final Water Temperature F. Extension of Methodology to Gas Cooking Tops 1. Gas Test Conditions 2. Gas Supply Instrumentation 3. Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops 4. Burner Heat Input Rate Adjustment 5. Target Power Density for Optional Potential Simmering Setting PreSelection Test 6. Product Temperature Measurement for Gas Cooking Tops G. Definitions and Clarifications 1. Operating Modes 2. Product Configuration and Installation Requirements 3. Power Settings 4. Specialty Cooking Zone 5. Turndown Temperature H. Test Conditions and Instrumentation 1. Electrical Supply 2. Water Load Mass Tolerance 3. Test Vessel Flatness I. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption 1. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 62301 2. Standby Power Measurement for Cooking Tops With Varying Power as a Function of Clock Time J. Metrics 1. Annual Active Mode Energy Consumption 2. Combined Low-Power Mode Hours 3. Annual Combined Low-Power Mode Energy 4. Integrated Annual Energy Consumption 5. Annual Energy Consumption and Annual Cost K. Alternative Proposals 1. Replacing the Simmering Test With a Simmering Usage Factor 2. Changing the Setting Used to Calculate Simmering Energy 3. Industry Test Procedures L. Representations 1. Sampling Plan 2. Convertible Cooking Appliances M. Reporting N. Test Procedure Costs O. Compliance Date IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Descriptions of Reasons for Action 2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements 5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Congressional Notification N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Kitchen ranges and ovens are included in the list of ‘‘covered products’’ for which the Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) DOE’s regulations at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430 section 2 defines ‘‘cooking products,’’ 1 which cover cooking appliances that use gas, electricity, or microwave energy as the source of heat. The section also defines specific categories of cooking products: conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, and a term for products that do not fall into those categories: ‘‘other cooking products.’’ DOE’s energy conservation standards and test procedure for cooking products are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix I (‘‘appendix I’’), respectively. Only microwave oven test procedures are currently specified in appendix I. DOE is creating a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix I1 (‘‘appendix I1’’) that establishes a test procedure for conventional cooking tops. The following sections discuss DOE’s authority to establish test procedures for conventional cooking tops and relevant background information regarding DOE’s consideration of test procedures for this product. 1 DOE established the regulatory term ‘‘cooking products’’ in lieu of the statutory term ‘‘kitchen ranges and ovens’’ (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) having determined that the latter is obsolete and does not accurately describe the products considered, which include microwave ovens, conventional ranges, cooking tops, and ovens. 63 FR 48038, 48052 (Sep. 8, 1998). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 A. Authority The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),2 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title III, Part B 3 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These products include cooking products, and specifically conventional cooking tops, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296). The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this 2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 3 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51493 section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product, including cooking products, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed 270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines relevant to such procedure, including technological developments relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)). If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test is technically feasible. (Id.) Any such amendment must consider the E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51494 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations most current versions of IEC 62301 4 and IEC 62087 5 as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the statutory authority specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 B. Background As stated, DOE’s test procedure for cooking products appears at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I (‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Cooking Products’’). The current Federal test procedure provides for the testing only of standby power of microwave ovens. There are no provisions for testing conventional cooking tops or conventional ovens. DOE is adopting testing provisions only for conventional cooking tops in this final rule. DOE originally established test procedures for cooking products in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1978 (‘‘May 1978 Final Rule’’). 43 FR 20108, 20120– 20128. In the years following, DOE amended the test procedure for conventional cooking tops on several occasions. Those amendments included the adoption of standby and off mode provisions in a final rule published on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the ‘‘October 2012 Final Rule’’) that satisfied the EPCA requirement that DOE include measures of standby mode and off mode power in its test procedures for covered products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) In a final rule published December 16, 2016 (‘‘December 2016 Final Rule’’), DOE amended 10 CFR part 430 to incorporate by reference, for use in the conventional cooking top test procedure, the relevant sections of the Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (‘‘CENELEC’’) Standard 60350–2:2013, ‘‘Household electric appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Method for measuring performance’’ (‘‘EN 60350– 2:2013’’), which uses a water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric cooking tops, and extended the water-heating test 4 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances— Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011– 01). 5 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment—Methods of measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1–6: 2015, Part 7: 2018). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 method specified in EN 60350–2:2013 to gas cooking tops. 81 FR 91418. On August 18, 2020, DOE published a final rule (‘‘August 2020 Final Rule’’) withdrawing the test procedure for conventional cooking tops. 85 FR 50757. DOE initiated the rulemaking for the August 2020 Final Rule in response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) (‘‘AHAM petition’’). AHAM asserted that the then-current test procedure for gas cooking tops was not representative, and, for both gas and electric cooking tops, had such a high level of variation that it did not produce accurate results for certification and enforcement purposes and did not assist consumers in making purchasing decisions based on energy efficiency. 85 FR 50757, 50760; see also 80 FR 17944 (Apr. 25, 2018). At the time of the AHAM petition, the Federal test procedure for cooking tops measured the integrated annual energy consumption of both gas and electric cooking tops based on EN 60350– 2:2013.6 See, appendix I of 10 CFR part 430 subpart B edition revised as of January 1, 2020. DOE withdrew the test procedure for conventional cooking tops in the August 2020 Final Rule based on test data submitted by outside parties indicating that the test procedure for conventional cooking tops yielded inconsistent results.7 85 FR 50757, 50760. DOE’s test data for electric cooking tops from testing conducted at a single laboratory showed small variations. Id. Lab-to-lab test results submitted by AHAM showed high levels of variation for gas and electric cooking tops. Id. at 85 FR 50763. DOE determined that the inconsistency in results of such testing showed the results to be unreliable, and that it was unduly burdensome to require cooking 6 The EN 60350–2:2013 test method was based on the same test methods in the draft version of IEC 60350–2 Second Edition, at the time of publication of the final rule adopting EN 60350–2:2013. Based on comments received during the development of the draft, DOE stated in the December 2016 Final Rule that it expected the IEC procedure, once finalized, would retain the same basic test method as contained in EN 60350–2:2013, and incorporated EN 60350–2:2013 by reference in appendix I. 81 FR 91418, 91421 (Dec. 16, 2016). 7 DOE later stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking published on November 4, 2021, that not all of the test results submitted by outside parties were from testing that followed all requirements of the DOE test procedure. 86 FR 60974, 60976. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 top tests be conducted using that test method without further study to resolve those inconsistencies. Id. at 85 FR 50760. DOE conducted two sets of round robin testing and published a notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) on November 4, 2021, (‘‘November 2021 NOPR’’), at which time one set had been completed. The November 2021 NOPR proposed to re-establish a conventional cooking top test procedure. 86 FR 60974. DOE proposed to adopt the latest version of the relevant industry standard published by the International Electrotechnical Commission (‘‘IEC’’), Standard 60350–2 (Edition 2.0 2017– 08), ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance’’ (‘‘IEC 60350– 2:2017’’), with modifications. The modifications would adapt the test method to gas cooking tops, offer an optional method for burden reduction, normalize the energy use of each test cycle, include measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use, update certain test conditions, and clarify certain provisions. Id. The November 2021 NOPR also presented the results of an initial round robin test program initiated in January 2020 (‘‘2020 Round Robin’’) to investigate further the waterheating approach and the concerns raised in the AHAM petition.8 Id. at 86 FR 60979–60980. The comment period for the November 2021 NOPR was initially set to close on January 3, 2022. Id. at 86 FR 60974. DOE published a notice of data availability (‘‘NODA’’) on December 16, 2021, (‘‘December 2021 NODA’’) in which DOE announced that it had published the results of a second round robin test program initiated in May 2021 (‘‘2021 Round Robin’’) and extended the comment period for the November 2021 NOPR until January 18, 2022. 86 FR 71406. In response to a stakeholder request,9 on January 18, 2022, DOE published a notice further extending the comment period until February 17, 2022. 87 FR 2559. DOE received comments in response to the November 2021 NOPR and the December 2021 NODA from the interested parties listed in Table I.1. 8 The 2020 Round Robin was ongoing as of the August 2020 Final Rule. 9 Request from AHAM (EERE–2021–BT–TP– 0023–0007) available at www.regulations.gov/ comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0007. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 51495 TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 2021 NOPR AND DECEMBER 2021 NODA Commenter(s) Reference in this final rule Document No. in docket Anonymous .......................................................................................... Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, and Natural Resources Defense Council. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ................................... The American Gas Association and the American Public Gas Association. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .................................................. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority .......... Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison; collectively, the California InvestorOwned Utilities. Samsung Electronics America ............................................................. UL LLC ................................................................................................. Whirlpool Corporation .......................................................................... Anonymous ....................... Joint Commenters ............. 3 11 Individual. Efficiency Organizations. AHAM ................................ Joint Gas Associations ...... 12 18 NEEA ................................. NYSERDA ......................... CA IOUs ............................ 15 10 14 Trade Association. Utility and Trade Association. Efficiency Organization. State Agency. Utilities. Samsung ........................... UL ...................................... Whirlpool ........................... 16 17 13 Manufacturer. Certification Laboratory. Manufacturer. In this final rule, DOE establishes a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for the Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products.’’ For use in appendix I1, DOE also amends 10 CFR part 430 to incorporate by reference IEC 60350–2 (Edition 2.1, 2021–05), ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance’’, the current version of the applicable industry standard. Appendix I1: (1) Reduces the test burden and improves the repeatability and reproducibility 11 of testing conducted to IEC 60350–2:2021 by: (a) Simplifying the test vessel selection process for electrical cooking tops; (b) Modifying the room temperature, product temperature, and initial water temperature requirements; (c) Providing criteria for determining the simmering setting during energy testing; and (d) Normalizing the per-cycle energy use to account for the water temperature at the end of the simmering period; (2) Applies IEC 60350–2:2021 to the measurement of gas cooking tops by including: (a) Specifications for gas supply instrumentation and test conditions; (b) Test vessel selection based on nominal heat input rate; (c) Adjustment methods and specifications for the maximum heat input rate; and (d) Target power density for the optional potential simmering setting pre-selection test; (3) Provides additional specifications, including: (a) Definitions for operating modes, product configurations, test settings, test parameters, and instrumentation; (b) Test conditions, including electrical supply characteristics and water load mass tolerance; (c) Instructions for product installation according to product configuration; and (d) Instructions for determining power settings for multi-ring cooking zones and cooking zones with infinite power settings and rotating knobs; (4) Provides means for measuring cooking top annual energy use in standby mode and off mode by: (a) Applying certain provisions from IEC 62301, ‘‘Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power’’, First Edition, 2005–06, and IEC 62301, ‘‘Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power’’, Edition 2.0 2011–01; (b) Defining the number of hours spent in combined low-power mode; and (c) Defining the allocation of combined low-power mode hours to the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product; and (5) Defines the integrated annual energy use metric by specifying the representative water load mass and the number of annual cooking top cycles. DOE is also adding calculations of annual energy consumption and estimated annual operating cost to 10 CFR 430.23(i) and renaming the test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I to ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Microwave Ovens.’’ Table II.1 summarizes DOE’s modifications to the cooking top test procedure compared to the current industry test procedure, as well as the reasons for the provisions in new appendix I1. DOE’s reorganization of appendix I is summarized in Table II.2. 10 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE’s rulemaking to develop test procedures for conventional cooking tops. (Docket No. EERE– 2021–BT–TP–0023, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). Some comment references are from different dockets than the one listed here, in that case, the parenthetical reference will include the docket number as well as the document ID number. 11 Repeatability refers to test-to-test variability within a single laboratory, on a given unit. Reproducibility, which measures the ability to replicate the findings of others, refers to lab-to-lab variability, on a given unit. A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.10 II. Synopsis of the Final Rule jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Commenter type VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51496 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED TEST PROCEDURE FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS RELATIVE TO THE INDUSTRY TEST PROCEDURE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IEC 60350–2:2021 test procedure Appendix I1 test procedure Attribution Addresses only electric cooking tops ............................... Addresses both electric and gas cooking tops, including new provisions specific to gas test conditions, instrumentation, and test conduct. Includes definitions of operating modes, product configurations, test settings, test parameters, and specialty cooking zone. Provides additional detail for the installation instructions, by product configuration, as well as definitions of those configurations. Incorporates provisions of IEC 62301 (first and second editions) to measure standby mode and off mode power and calculate annual combined low-power mode energy. Specifies a room and starting product temperature of 25 ± 5 °C. Specifies that the temperature must be stable, defines stable temperature, and specifies how to measure the product temperature. Specifies an initial water temperature of 25 ± 0.5 °C ..... Requires the use of the cookware that is closest in size to the heating element size, without consideration of cookware size categories. Include all covered cooking tops. Includes an incomplete list of definitions .......................... Installation instructions specify only that the cooking product is to be installed in accordance with manufacturer instructions. Does not include provisions for measuring standby mode and off mode energy. Specifies a room and starting product temperature of 23 ± 2 degrees Celsius (‘‘°C’’). Specifies an initial water temperature of 15 ± 0.5 °C ...... Specifies complex requirements for determining test vessel sizes for cooking tops with 4 or more cooking zones, requiring that the set of vessels comprise at least 3 of 4 defined cookware size categories. Does not include a tolerance on the mass of the water load. The measured energy consumption of the simmering period is not normalized to account for a final water temperature above the nominal 90 °C. Uses a 1000 g water load to normalize energy consumption. Does not calculate annual energy use ............................. Specifies a 0.5 gram (‘‘g’’) tolerance on the mass of the water load. The energy consumption of the simmering period is normalized to represent a final water temperature of exactly 90 °C. Uses a 2853 g water load to normalize energy consumption. Calculates annual energy use based on 418 cooking cycles per year and 31 minutes per cycle. Improve readability of test procedure. Improve readability of test procedure. EPCA requirement. Decrease test burden. Decrease test burden. Improve readability of test procedure and decrease test burden. Improve repeatability and reproducibility. Improve representativeness of test results. Improve representativeness of test results. Provide a representative measure of annual energy consumption. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURE FOR MICROWAVE OVENS RELATIVE TO EXISTING TEST PROCEDURE Existing DOE test procedure Amended test procedure Appendix I title refers to all cooking products, but includes test procedures only for microwave ovens. Appendix I title refers only to microwave ovens ............. DOE has determined that the new test procedure described in section III of this document and adopted in this final rule will produce measurements of energy use that are representative of an average use cycle and are not unduly burdensome to conduct. Discussion of DOE’s actions are addressed in detail in section III of this document. Additionally, DOE provides estimates of the cost of testing for industry in section III.N of this document. DOE notes that there are currently no performancebased energy conservation standards prescribed for conventional cooking tops. The effective date for the new test procedure adopted in this final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Manufacturers will not be required to conduct the test procedure until compliance is required with any future applicable standards that are VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 established, unless manufacturers voluntarily choose to make representations as to the energy use or energy efficiency of a conventional cooking top. To the extent manufacturers make voluntary representations as to the energy use or energy efficiency of a conventional cooking top, representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be based on testing in accordance with the new test procedure beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule. III. Discussion In this final rule, DOE establishes a new test procedure for conventional cooking tops in a new appendix I1, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products.’’ The test procedure is based primarily on an industry standard for measuring the energy consumption of electric cooking PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Attribution Improve readability of test procedure. tops, IEC 60350–2:2021, with certain adjustments and clarifications, as discussed in the following sections of this document. Although IEC 60350– 2:2021 applies only to electric cooking tops, the methodology is extended to gas cooking tops by means of additional instrumentation and test setup provisions. DOE is also renaming existing appendix I to ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Microwave Ovens’’ to clarify that it applies only to microwave ovens. A. General Comments Whirlpool supported AHAM’s comments on the November 2021 NOPR. (Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 2) The Joint Gas Associations agreed with the amendments that AHAM recommended in response to the November 2021 NOPR. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 18 at p. 2) E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations An anonymous commenter expressed general support for a new test procedure that creates a standardized measure of energy consumption of cooking products. (Anonymous Commenter, No. 3 at p. 1) Samsung supported DOE’s establishing energy conservation standards and considering applicable tolerances for certification and compliance for electric cooking tops, based on the round robin test results. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 2) Samsung also encouraged DOE to move forward in finalizing the test procedure for electric cooking tops, stating that this could help advance ENERGY STAR recognition of induction cooking tops in the near future, which would also be important for significant potential decarbonization and electrification through induction cooking. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 3) NYSERDA commented that DOE should re-institute a test procedure for electric and gas cooking tops as soon as possible. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 1) According to NYSERDA, the test procedure withdrawal was unsupported by DOE’s test results and data, and has left a void in the market for products introduced since October 2019 that have not been subjected to test procedures and have been sold to consumers. (Id.) NEEA expressed general support for the proposed test procedure. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 1) The CA IOUs supported re-adoption of a test procedure for cooking products and encouraged DOE to swiftly finalize this rulemaking, commenting that the proposed modifications to the test procedure would mitigate the repeatability, reproducibility, and representativeness concerns of the withdrawn test procedure while also reducing the testing burden. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters supported the test methods proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. They urged DOE to finalize the test procedures for cooking tops as soon as possible to allow the Department to develop standards that can deliver large energy savings. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters also encouraged DOE to initiate work to develop a test procedure for conventional ovens, noting that there are no test procedures or performancebased standards in place for conventional ovens. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 4) The Joint Commenters stated that developing a test procedure for conventional ovens would allow DOE to set performance-based standards for conventional ovens, which could lead to significant energy savings. (Id.) VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 DOE notes that the scope of this rulemaking and of this final rule is limited to test procedures for cooking tops. The development of any potential test procedure for conventional ovens would be considered in a separate rulemaking. The Joint Gas Associations commented that the proposed DOE test procedures for cooking tops do not appear to produce reliable and repeatable results. (Joint Gas Associations, No. 18 at p. 2) To remedy this, the Joint Gas Associations support the changes recommended by AHAM. (Id.) AHAM commented that the proposed rule does not comply with the EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) that new and amended test procedures produce accurate results that measure energy efficiency during a representative average use cycle or period of use and are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 2) AHAM also stated that the proposed rule does not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act requirement that a rule not be arbitrary and capricious. (Id.) AHAM further commented that the November 2021 NOPR lacks supporting data on the record other than in summary form and is not the detailed data necessary to assess DOE’s proposal and support its conclusion that the proposed test procedure sufficiently addresses repeatability and reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 5–6) In evaluating whether the adopted test procedure is reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency and energy use of conventional cooking tops, DOE relied, in part, on the data presented in the November 2021 NOPR and the December 2021 NODA. This final rule is supported by rigorous and substantive testing conducted over 6 months at four different testing laboratories that included both round robin testing and additional investigative testing. As discussed in the following sections, DOE has determined that the evaluated test data demonstrate that the test procedure is repeatable and reproducible for both electric and gas cooking tops (see discussion in section III.D.1 of this document). In this final rule, DOE determines that this test procedure is accurate and measures energy use during a representative average use cycle (see discussions in sections III.E.1, III.F.3, III.G.2, and III.K.1 of this document). DOE further determines in this final rule that the test procedure is not unduly burdensome (see section III.N of this document). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51497 AHAM requested that DOE provide 180 days between the publication of the final test procedure and the end of the comment period on proposed energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 8) AHAM further requested that DOE not issue a proposed rule on standards until after publishing a notice of data availability or other subsequent document subject to notice and comment that provides updated test data from DOE’s own testing, preferably including data from AHAM members’ testing as well. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE could satisfy its commitment to rectify its missed statutory deadline by finalizing a rule not amending energy conservation standards for cooking products due to the lack of a test procedure, stating that doing so would allow DOE to separately finalize a test procedure and consider whether further amended standards are justified. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 6) AHAM commented that EPCA requires DOE to review determinations not to amend energy conservation standards ‘‘not later than 3 years after’’ the determination, stating that 3 years at most would pass before DOE would revisit possible amended standards if it published a final rule not amending cooking product energy conservation standards. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE could review standards at any time before that, should a test procedure be completed sooner, which AHAM asserted was likely. (Id.) AHAM commented that it has convened a task force (‘‘Task Force’’) 12 that has worked to develop an industry test method that would improve the repeatability and reproducibility of the test and to decrease what AHAM characterized as significant test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 4–5) AHAM commented that its Task Force has worked to develop a test method that meets DOE’s requirements under EPCA. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 4) AHAM acknowledged that there are some improvements in the test procedure as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR, but stated that there are potential sources of variation that need to be resolved before DOE finalizes a cooking top test procedure. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 5) AHAM noted that the determination to withdraw the cooking top test procedure was one of the rulemakings 12 The AHAM cooking product task force includes AHAM member manufacturers, a representative of the Appliance Standard Awareness Project, and DOE staff and contractors. The first meeting of the Task Force was in January 2021. The Task Force has been developing test procedures for both electric and gas cooking tops. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51498 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 specified for review by December 31, 2021, under Executive Order 13990, ‘‘Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.’’ (Id.) AHAM requested that DOE allow AHAM to complete its data collection efforts and then proceed with this rulemaking according to the data, rather than continue to work in parallel to the Task Force. (Id.) DOE based the test procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR on the then-current version of the Task Force draft procedure. In particular, DOE notes that the test procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR includes several revisions to IEC 60350– 2 methodology suggested by Task Force members. One is the simplification of the test vessel selection for electric cooking tops (see section III.E.1 of this document). A second is the expanded ambient room temperature range (see section III.E.2.a of this document). A third is the updated initial water temperature (see section III.E.2.c of this document). A fourth is the use of a flow chart to determine the simmering setting (see section III.E.3 of this document). A fifth is the normalization of the percycle energy use based on the final water temperature (see section III.E.4 of this document). Generally, DOE has addressed concerns that AHAM has raised. These include the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure (see section III.D.1 of this document), the potential effects of test vessel warpage (see section III.H.3 of this document), and the test burden (see sections III.K.1 and III.N of this document). DOE is finalizing this test procedure having determined that it meets the EPCA criteria that a test procedure be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure the energy use of a covered product during a representative average use cycle, without being unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE discusses in detail the adopted test procedure and addresses specific comments in the following sections. B. Scope of Applicability This rulemaking applies to conventional cooking tops, a category of cooking products which are household cooking appliances consisting of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating. 10 CFR 430.2. A conventional cooking top includes any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 As discussed in section I.A of this document, EPCA authorizes DOE to establish and amend test procedures for covered products (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)) and identifies kitchen ranges and ovens as a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) In a final rule published on September 8, 1998 (63 FR 48038), DOE amended its regulations in certain places to replace the term ‘‘kitchen ranges and ovens’’ with ‘‘cooking products.’’ DOE regulations currently define ‘‘cooking products’’ as consumer products that are used as the major household cooking appliances. Cooking products are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or more of the following sources of heat: gas, electricity, or microwave energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 CFR 430.2. Certain household cooking appliances combine a conventional cooking product component with other appliance functionality, which may or may not perform a cooking-related function. Examples of such ‘‘combined cooking products’’ include a conventional range, which combines a conventional cooking top and one or more conventional ovens; a microwave/ conventional cooking top, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional cooking top; a microwave/ conventional oven, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional oven; and a microwave/conventional range, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional oven in separate compartments and a conventional cooking top. A combined cooking product that consists of multiple classes of cooking products is subject to multiple standards. Any established energy conservation standard applies to each individual component of such a combined cooking product. As determined in the December 2016 Final Rule, the cooking top test procedure applies to the individual conventional cooking top portion of a combined cooking product. See 81 FR 91418, 91423. As discussed in the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE observed that for combined cooking products, the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption can be measured only for the combined cooking product, not for the individual components. 81 FR 91418, 91423. As discussed in section III.J.3 of this document, DOE is establishing similar methods to those adopted in the December 2016 Final Rule to calculate the integrated annual energy consumption of the conventional cooking top component separately. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 DOE’s approach involves allocating a portion of the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product to the conventional cooking top component using the estimated annual cooking hours for the given components of the combined cooking product. C. Round Robin Test Results In January 2020, DOE initiated the 2020 Round Robin test program to investigate further the repeatability and reproducibility of the water-heating approach in the then-current version of appendix I and to evaluate issues raised in the AHAM petition. DOE presented the results of the 2020 Round Robin in the November 2021 NOPR. 86 FR 60974, 60979. Four laboratories with experience testing cooking products tested a total of ten cooking tops—five electric units 13 and five gas units— according to the then-current version of appendix I. Id. Except as noted in the November 2021 NOPR, for each unit tested, each laboratory conducted three complete tests (i.e., three replications of the DOE test procedure) 14 to determine the annual energy consumption (excluding combined low-power mode energy), yielding a coefficient of variation (‘‘COV’’) 15 that can be used to assess the repeatability 16 of results. Id. The averages between the laboratories were also compared to determine a COV of reproducibility.17 Id. The results from the 2020 Round Robin are summarized as follows. For electric cooking tops, the test results showed repeatability COVs ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 percent and reproducibility COVs ranging from 1.5 to 2.7 percent.18 86 FR 60974, 60980. For gas cooking tops, the test results showed repeatability COVs ranging from 0.3 to 3.7 percent and reproducibility COVs ranging from 4.0 to 8.9 percent. Id. Following the August 2020 Final Rule, DOE initiated another round robin test program in response to changes to 13 Among the five electric cooking tops, two were induction technology, two were radiant technology, and one was electric resistance coil technology. 14 As detailed in the November 2021 NOPR, not all ten units were tested at all four participating laboratories. Table III.1 of the November 2021 NOPR details which units were tested at which laboratories. Further details regarding testing can be found in section III.K.3 of this document. 15 COV is a statistical measure of the dispersion of data points around the mean. A lower COV indicates less variation in results. 16 Repeatability refers to test-to-test variability within a single lab, on a given unit. 17 Reproducibility refers to lab-to-lab variability, on a given unit. 18 Among test laboratories identified in the November 2021 NOPR as ‘‘certified,’’ reproducibility COVs ranged from 0.4 percent to 1.9 percent. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 electric cooking tops on the market 19 and to evaluate variability in testing gas cooking tops. DOE presented the results of this 2021 Round Robin in the December 2021 NODA. 86 FR 71406, 71407. Four laboratories 20 with recognized experience testing cooking products tested a total of five cooking top units—four gas cooking tops and one electric (resistance coil-type) cooking top that meets the most recent version of the relevant industry safety standard (i.e., UL 858)—according to the test procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR.21 For each unit tested, each laboratory conducted two complete tests (i.e., two replications of the proposed test procedure) to determine the annual energy consumption (excluding combined lowpower mode energy). The results from the 2021 Round Robin are as follows. For the electriccoil cooking top, the results showed repeatability COVs ranging from 0.3 to 0.5 percent (compared to a range of 0.4 to 0.7 percent from the 2020 Round Robin) and a reproducibility COV of 2.4 percent (compared to 2.7 percent from the 2020 Round Robin). 86 FR 60974, 60980 and 86 FR 71406, 71407.22 For the gas cooking tops, the test results showed repeatability COVs ranging from 0.004 to 1.7 percent (compared to a range of 0.3 to 3.7 percent from the 2020 Round Robin) and reproducibility COVs ranging from 3.3 to 5.3 percent (compared to a range of 4.0 to 8.9 percent from the 2020 Round Robin). Id. at 86 FR 71407–71408. In response to the November 2021 NOPR and December 2021 NODA, AHAM commented that DOE had not provided sufficient data. In particular, AHAM asserted the data DOE provided 19 On June 18, 2015, UL issued a revision to its safety standard for electric ranges—UL 858 ‘‘Household Electric Ranges Standard for Safety’’ (‘‘UL 858’’)—that added a new performance requirement for electric-coil cooking tops intended to address unattended cooking. This revision had an effective date of April 4, 2019. Because the electric-coil cooking top in the 2020 Round Robin was purchased prior to that effective date, DOE could not be certain whether that test unit contained design features that would meet the performance specifications in revised version of UL 858. To address the lack of test data on electric-coil cooking tops that comply with the revised UL 858 safety standard, DOE included one electric-coil cooking top meeting the 2015 revision of UL 858 in the 2021 Round Robin. 86 FR 71406, 71407. 20 Three of the test laboratories which participated in the 2020 Round Robin also participated in the 2021 Round Robin. 21 As detailed in the December 2021 NODA, not all five units were tested at all four participating laboratories. The data tables accompanying the December 2021 NODA detail which units were tested at which laboratories. 22 See also the table of results for the 2021 Round Robin available at www.regulations.gov/document/ EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 was insufficient to support its analysis or to allow commenters to fully understand, interpret, or analyze the proposed test procedure and provide meaningful comment. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 6) AHAM commented that DOE’s failure to fully disclose its data in this rulemaking would be a mistake and urged DOE to provide complete disclosure and time for comment. (Id.) AHAM requested that DOE provide its full, raw data on the record for stakeholder review, not just high-level results. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 7) AHAM stated that the data summaries provided by DOE were helpful but do not provide the ability to understand what occurred during testing or to conduct an independent review of the data. (Id.) AHAM commented that without second-by-second data from DOE, it is unable to fully evaluate DOE’s results and provide meaningful comments. (Id.) AHAM commented that it is collecting data to evaluate DOE’s proposed test procedure and hopes to provide the investigative test data in detail to supplement comments on the test procedure. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that they also plan to test electric and gas cooking tops to further evaluate the proposed test procedure’s repeatability, reproducibility, and representativeness. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 9) The CA IOUs commented that they will share the results of this testing as it is completed. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that the 2021 Round Robin results highlight the efficacy of the amendments proposed by DOE in the November 2021 NOPR in improving repeatability and reproducibility of the cooking top test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that in comparison to the 10-percent uncertainty allowance for repeatability in other test methodologies such as the American Society for Testing and Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) test methods used in the ENERGY STAR program, the revised DOE test methodology has shown exceptional repeatability and reproducibility results. (Id.) The CA IOUs supported the improvements made to the test method, stating that the test procedure constitutes a reasonable, repeatable and reproducible method. (Id.) NYSERDA commented that DOE’s proposal effectively addresses any concerns with the prior procedure, stating that the modifications proposed in the November 2021 NOPR reduce the variability in repeatability and reproducibility as compared to the previous test procedure. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2) PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51499 Samsung supported DOE’s efforts after the previously withdrawn test procedure to further develop the test procedure for conventional cooking tops to address concerns expressed by stakeholders to improve repeatability and reproducibility and to reduce test burden. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 2) Samsung commented that the repeatability and reproducibility COV values for electric and gas cooking tops based on the 2021 Round Robin significantly mitigate the repeatability and reproducibility concerns raised previously. (Id.) AHAM expressed its long-held position that any COV greater than 2 percent for the reproducibility of testing cooking top energy use from laboratory to laboratory is unacceptable. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 8) AHAM asserted that, while it appreciates DOE’s efforts to reduce variation, those efforts have not reduced variation enough and that the reproducibility COVs presented in DOE’s data are still too high. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE’s data show that the variation in gas cooking top testing is not similar to the variation in electric cooking top testing, and asserted that more work is necessary before DOE can proceed with the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 8–9) According to AHAM, the industry insists on more narrow reproducibility than was measured during the 2021 Round Robin, stating that a higher COV is likely to increase the risk of potential non-compliance (e.g., where a certifying body finds a unit’s performance to be acceptable, but verification testing identifies potential non-compliance). (Id.) AHAM urged DOE to allow the Task Force to complete its test plan and to consider its test results in this rulemaking. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 9) AHAM commented that it hopes the testing will be completed by September 2022. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 10). DOE notes that in addition to the extensive test data made public as part of the November 2021 NOPR and the December 2021 NODA, DOE has also posted to the rulemaking docket the detailed test reports upon which the summary tables presented in the December 2021 NODA were based, in response to AHAM’s request that DOE provide its full, raw data.23 These data and test reports represent testing of cooking tops from multiple manufacturers, across all available technologies, at multiple testing laboratories. The breadth of products represented in DOE’s data set, together 23 Available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2021-BT-TP-0023/document, items number 19, 20, 21, and 22. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51500 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations with the data and test reports published to the rulemaking docket, provide the foundation for the conclusions presented in the discussion that follows. DOE welcomes any additional data that AHAM, the CA IOUs, or any other stakeholder is able to share, and DOE will consider any such data as part of the ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE is required to establish test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency and energy use of covered products, including conventional cooking tops, during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE seeks improved repeatability and reproducibility of a test procedure (as measured by a decrease in the COVs), which has two potential benefits related to this obligation. First, representativeness potentially improves because there is more certainty that the measured results reflect representative use of the product under test. Second, test burden potentially decreases, because fewer test replications may be necessary to obtain certainty in the results. Regarding AHAM’s comment that the results of the gas cooking top testing do not demonstrate similar variation to the electric cooking top testing, DOE acknowledges the generally higher reproducibility COVs for gas cooking tops as compared to electric cooking tops and that in the 2021 Round Robin the reproducibility COV of 5.3 percent for one of the gas cooking tops was higher than the reproducibility COVs of the three other gas cooking tops (3.3, 3.6, and 3.6 percent). However, these differences reflect the inherent differences between electric and gas cooking tops. In particular, a gas cooking top’s performance variability is greater than that of an electric cooking top due to inherent factors that do not affect electric products. These include variation in the gas composition, air flow mix, or other components of the combustion system. In effect, a certain amount of variation in test results for a gas cooking top is expected; this variation reflects actual variation in performance of the product. The test procedure is capturing variation in the product’s actual performance, not demonstrating a lack of repeatability and reproducibility in the test procedure. DOE has determined that the 2021 Round Robin test results demonstrate that the representativeness of the test procedure proposed in the November VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 2021 NOPR and finalized in this final rule for gas cooking tops (see discussion of gas-specific provisions in section III.F of this document) is not negatively impacted by repeatability and reproducibility concerns. In particular, the test procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR demonstrates significantly improved repeatability and reproducibility compared to the testing methodology used for the 2020 Round Robin. As discussed, the repeatability COVs for the 2021 Round Robin for gas cooking tops ranged from 0.004 to 1.7 percent (compared to a range of 0.3 to 3.7 percent from the 2020 Round Robin) and reproducibility COVs ranged from 3.3 to 5.3 percent (compared to a range of 4.0 to 8.9 percent from the 2020 Round Robin). DOE has also determined that the 2020 Round Robin and 2021 Round Robin test results demonstrate that the representativeness of DOE’s test procedure for electric cooking tops is not negatively impacted by repeatability and reproducibility concerns. The 2021 Round Robin test results demonstrate specifically that these findings hold true for electric coil-type products that meet the revised UL 858 safety standard. As discussed, the repeatability COVs for coil-type electric cooking tops ranged from 0.3 to 0.5 percent and the reproducibility COV was 2.4 percent. There are changes that potentially could further improve repeatability and reproducibility. These include narrower tolerances on testing conditions and greater accuracy on instrumentation. However, such increased stringencies would likely increase the testing burden and could make it more difficult to conduct a valid test. For gas cooking tops, tighter tolerances on gas specifications than those proposed in the November 2021 NOPR 24 could decrease variability. 86 FR 60974, 60987. However, as explained below, this would not be feasible because test laboratories may not have control over the higher heating value of their gas supply if they do not choose to use bottled gas with a certified gross heating value. DOE research suggests that third-party laboratories use either municipal line natural gas or bottled natural gas for their natural-gas-fired combustion testing. Either source may have a higher heating value that varies from the nominal 1,025 Btu per standard cubic 24 The gas specifications proposed in the November 2021 NOPR only required an approximate higher heating value of 1,025 British thermal units (‘‘Btu’’) per standard cubic foot when testing with natural gas or an approximate higher heating value of 2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot when testing with propane. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 foot for natural gas specified in the November 2021 NOPR. The Environmental Protection Agency suggests the typical range is 950–1,050 Btu per standard cubic foot.25 The higher heating value will depend on the specific mix of gases in the natural gas line, which is a function of the origin of the natural gas. Because test laboratories do not have control over the line gas’s heating value, specifying a tolerance on the natural gas heating value would not be feasible. One way to minimize higher heating value variability from test-to-test and from lab-to-lab is to specify reference gases to be very pure (i.e., over 99% methane). However, requiring the use of methane would impose burdens on test laboratories. Methane is substantially more costly per cubic foot than natural gas 26 and would require a dedicated bottled gas supply. Test laboratories currently using municipal line gas would need to make significant investments, such as purchasing gas bottle storage cabinets and controllers for flammable gases. For test laboratories currently using bottled natural gas for other gas-fired appliances (e.g., clothes dryers, water heaters, furnaces), requiring the use of methane for testing cooking tops would create additional logistical burden, because they would need to keep track of multiple kinds of gas bottles. In summary, DOE has determined that any potential improvement in repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure that could be achieved by requiring the use of pure methane would be outweighed by the additional cost and burden that would be imposed on test laboratories, and therefore requiring the use of pure methane would be unduly burdensome. Other alternatives suggested by AHAM would significantly affect the test procedure’s representativeness (as discussed in section III.K.1 of this document). In this final rule, DOE determines that the test procedure established in this 25 www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/ documents/1.4_natural_gas_combustion.pdf. 26 DOE research found typical prices of bottled methane with purity of 99.0 percent or greater, intended for laboratory usage, ranging from approximately $0.50 to $1.50 per cubic foot of methane, depending on cylinder size and purity. Methane, with a gross heating value of 1,011 Btu/ ft3, is the primary constituent of natural gas and is thus typically used for testing products designed to operate with natural gas. In contrast, the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s U.S. monthly commercial price of natural gas for January 2022 was $9.76 per thousand cubic feet, or $0.00976 per cubic foot. (See www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_ dcu_nus_m.htm.) Therefore, the cost of bottled methane for a testing laboratory would be roughly 50–150 times that of natural gas from a municipal line. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations final rule is reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a cooking top during a representative average use cycle and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. D. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 60350–2:2021 for Measuring Energy Consumption jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 1. Water-Heating Test Methodology In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to create a new appendix I1 that would generally adopt the test procedure in IEC 60350–2:2017, which is an industry test procedure that measures the energy consumption of a cooking top using a water-heating method. 86 FR 60974, 60979. In the IEC 60350–2:2017 test method (and the updated IEC 60350–2:2021 test method), each heating element is tested individually by heating a specified water load in a standardized test vessel at the maximum power setting until the temperature of the water, including any overshoot after reducing the input power, reaches 90 °C (i.e., the ‘‘heat-up period’’).27 At that time, the power is reduced to a lower setting so that the water temperature remains as close to 90 °C as possible, without dropping below that temperature threshold, for a 20-minute period (i.e., the ‘‘simmering period’’).28 Energy consumption is measured over the entire duration of the initial heat-up period and 20-minute simmering period, which together comprise the Energy Test Cycle for that heating element. The energy consumption for each heating element is normalized by the weight of the tested water load and averaged among all tested heating elements to obtain an average energy consumption value for the cooking top, as discussed in section III.J.1 of this document. The approach DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR for new appendix I1, IEC 60350–2:2017 (on which the November 2021 NOPR was based), and IEC 60350–2:2021 (on which this final rule is based) are all similar to the approach used in the earlier DOE test procedure as established in the December 2016 Final Rule, which incorporated certain provisions from EN 60350–2:2013. Id. A more detailed comparison of IEC 60350– 2:2021, IEC 60350–2:2017 and EN 60350–2:2013 is provided in section III.D.2 of this document. 27 See discussion of the turndown temperature in sections III.D.2.a and III.G.5 of this document. 28 See discussion of the simmering period in section III.E.3 of this document. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use a water-heating method, based primarily on IEC 60350–2:2017, to measure cooking top energy consumption, but with modifications to extend the test methodology to gas cooking tops and to reduce the variability of test results, as discussed in sections III.D.2.d through III.G of this document. 86 FR 60974, 60980. UL supported DOE’s efforts to review and update the test procedure for cooking products and of DOE leveraging existing procedures such as IEC 60350– 2:2017. (UL, No. 17 at p. 1) Samsung supported the proposed test procedure for cooking tops based on the IEC water-heating test methodology. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 2) AHAM generally agreed with DOE’s proposed determination to rely on a water boiling test. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 3) For the reasons discussed in November 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing its proposal to use a waterheating method, based primarily on the most recent IEC test procedure, to measure cooking top energy consumption. 2. Differences Between IEC 60350– 2:2021 and Previous Versions After the publication of the December 2016 Final Rule, which was based on EN 60350–2:2013, IEC issued IEC 60350–2:2017. In comparison to EN 60350–2:2013, IEC 60350–2:2017 included additional informative methodology for significantly reducing testing burden during the determination of the simmering setting. As mentioned previously, since the publication of the November 2021 NOPR, IEC has issued an updated test standard, IEC 60350–2:2021. This updated version retains substantively the same provisions for the waterheating methodology evaluated in the November 2021 NOPR, except as addressed in the following sections. In this final rule, DOE incorporates certain provisions of IEC 60350–2:2021 for measuring the energy consumption of cooking tops. DOE further adopts certain modifications and clarifications to the referenced sections of IEC 60350– 2:2021, as discussed in sections III.D.2.d, 0, III.G, III.H, and III.I of this document. a. Temperature-Averaging DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to add a definition of ‘‘smoothened water temperature’’ to section 1 of new appendix I1, which would specify that the averaged values be rounded to the nearest 0.1 °C, in accordance with the resolution PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51501 requirements of IEC 60350–2:2017. 86 FR 60974, 60982. DOE also proposed to define smoothened water temperature as ‘‘the 40-second moving-average temperature as calculated in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2:2017, rounded to the nearest 0.1 degree Celsius.’’ Id. DOE requested comment on its proposed definition of smoothened water temperature as well as its proposal to require the smoothened water temperature be rounded to the nearest 0.1 °C. Id. The CA IOUs commented that using a 40-second moving average for determining temperatures is a key change proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to increase repeatability of the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 1–2) NEEA agreed with implementing a 40second moving average to smoothen the temperature curve, stating that this addresses natural temperature oscillation. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2) For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing a definition for smoothened water temperature consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, changing the referenced test procedure to IEC 60350– 2:2021. In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE discussed that the water temperature may occasionally oscillate slightly above and below 90 °C due to minor fluctuations (i.e., ‘‘noise’’) in the temperature measurement. 81 FR 91418, 91430. As DOE further discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, these temperature oscillations may cause difficulty in determining when the 20minute simmering period starts after the water temperature first reaches 90 °C. 86 FR 60974, 60981. EN 60350–2:2013 did not contain provisions that addressed temperature oscillations. In contrast, IEC 60350–2:2017 introduced (and IEC 60350–2:2021 maintained) the use of ‘‘smoothened’’ temperature measurements to minimize the effect of minor temperature oscillations in determining the water temperature. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE evaluated the impact of implementing ‘‘smoothened’’ water temperature averaging on two aspects of the test procedure: (1) validating that the water temperature at which the power setting is reduced during the simmering test 29 (i.e., the ‘‘turndown temperature’’) 30 29 DOE uses the term ‘‘simmering test’’ to refer to the test cycle that includes a heat-up period and a simmering period. DOE uses this term to distinguish it from the ‘‘overshoot test’’ which refers to the test used to calculate the turndown temperature (see section III.G.5 of this document). 30 See section III.G.5 of this document for a definition and further discussion of turndown temperature. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51502 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations was within a certain defined tolerance; and (2) the determination of the start of the 20-minute simmering period. 86 FR 60974, 60981. Regarding validation of the turndown temperature, Section 7.5.2.1 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 provides a methodology for conducting a preliminary test (the ‘‘overshoot test’’) to determine the water temperature at which the power setting will be reduced to the ‘‘simmering setting’’ during the subsequent simmering test (i.e., the ‘‘target’’ turndown temperature).31 Section 7.5.3 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specifies that while conducting the simmering test, the water temperature when the power setting is reduced (i.e., the ‘‘measured’’ turndown temperature) must be recorded. Section 7.5.4.1 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 provides a methodology for validating that the measured turndown temperature was within a tolerance of +1 °C/¥0.5 °C of the target turndown temperature. Section 7.5.4.1 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 requires that this validation be performed based on the smoothened water temperature (as described previously) rather than using the instantaneous measured water temperature. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE presented test data suggesting that using the smoothened water temperature measurement, rather than the instantaneous water temperature measurement, to validate the measured turndown temperature could introduce unnecessary test burden. That test burden resulted from invalidating test cycles that otherwise would have been valid if the instantaneous water temperature measurement had been used instead (as was previously required by EN 60350–2:2013). 86 FR 60974, 60981. The potential for this to occur is highest for cooking top types that have particularly fast water temperature response times to changes in input power; e.g., electric-smooth radiant and induction types. Id. On such products, the rate at which the water temperature rises begins to quickly decrease (i.e., the temperature rise ‘‘flattens’’ out) within a few seconds after the power setting is turned down to the simmering setting. Id. For such products, the smoothened turndown temperature can be a few degrees lower than the instantaneous turndown 31 See section III.G.5 of this document for a definition and further discussion of target turndown temperature. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 temperature because the smoothened water temperature calculation incorporates 20 seconds of forwardlooking data into the average, during which time the temperature curve is flattening out. Id. This can result in a measured turndown temperature that is within the allowable tolerance of the target turndown temperature based on the instantaneous water temperature, but below the allowable tolerance when determined based on the smoothened average method (and thus invalid according to Section 7.5.4.1 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021). Id. On such products, using the instantaneous water temperature, rather than the smoothened water temperature, would provide a more accurate and representative validation that the measured turndown temperature was within the specified tolerance of the target turndown temperature. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the requirement in IEC 60350–2:2017 32 to use the smoothened water temperature measurement, rather than the instantaneous water temperature measurement, to validate the measured turndown temperature may be unduly burdensome, particularly for electricsmooth radiant and induction cooking tops. Id. at 86 FR 60982. Therefore, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that new appendix I1 require using the instantaneous water temperature measurement (rather than the smoothened water temperature measurement) to validate that the measured turndown temperature was within +1 °C/¥0.5 °C of the target turndown temperature. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to require that the instantaneous, rather than the smoothened, turndown 33 temperature be within +1 °C/¥0.5 °C of the target turndown temperature. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal. For the reasons discussed, DOE determines that the provision to use the smoothened water temperature measurement to validate the measured turndown temperature may be unduly burdensome, particularly for electricsmooth radiant and induction cooking tops. Therefore, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to require that the 32 IEC 60350–2:2021 contains the same requirement. 33 See section III.G.5 of this document for comments pertaining to the definition of turndown temperature. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 instantaneous turndown temperature be within +1 °C/¥0.5 °C of the target turndown temperature. Regarding the determination of the start of the 20-minute simmering period,34 in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE analyzed approaches for determining the start of the simmering period that account for water temperature fluctuations. 86 FR 60974, 60982. Section 7.5.3 of both IEC 60350– 2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specifies that the start of the 20-minute simmering period is when the water temperature first meets or exceeds 90 °C. By contrast, the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, which used instantaneous water temperatures, allowed for a brief ‘‘grace period’’ after the water temperature initially reached 90 °C. In that grace period, temperature fluctuations below 90 °C for up to 20 seconds were permitted without changing the determination of whether the power setting under test met the requirements for a simmering setting. As part of the November 2021 NOPR analysis, DOE analyzed test data from the 2020 Round Robin. DOE observed that for each simmering setting under test, the smoothened water temperature did not drop below 90 °C after the initial time it reached that temperature. In other words, when using the smoothened water temperature approach described in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2:2017, none of the test cycles that had required a ‘‘grace period’’ when evaluated according to the test procedure finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule had smoothened water temperatures below 90 °C after the start of the simmering period. Id. Accordingly, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to determine the start of the simmering period as defined in Sections 7.5.3 and 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2:2017, using the smoothened water temperature and without any ‘‘grace period.’’ Id. DOE tentatively concluded in the November 2021 NOPR that a grace period is unnecessary when relying on smoothened water temperature. DOE also tentatively concluded such a provision could cause confusion regarding the start time of the 20-minute simmering period, which in turn could reduce repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id. 34 As discussed in section III.E.3 of this document, the start of the 20-minute simmering period is when the smoothened water temperature is greater than or equal to 90 °C. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations DOE requested comment on its proposal to include the requirement to evaluate the start of the simmering period as the time that the 40-second ‘‘smoothened’’ average water temperature first meets or exceeds 90 °C. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal. For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, the requirement to evaluate the start of the simmering period as the time that the 40-second ‘‘smoothened’’ average water temperature first meets or exceeds 90 °C. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 b. Water Hardness Section 7.1.Z6.1 of EN 60350–2:2013, and Section 7.6 of both IEC 60350– 2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021, specify that the test water shall be potable. Section 7.5.1 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 further state that distilled water may be used to avoid lime sediment. DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that the use of distilled water would not significantly affect the energy use of the cooking top in comparison to test results that would be obtained using water with a hardness within potable limits.35 86 FR 60974, 60982. This was based on DOE’s 2020 Round Robin test results that showed high reproducibility among the test laboratories with different water supplies that were not subject to specific tolerances on water hardness. Id. DOE also tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that a reduction in lime sediment could extend the lifetime of the test vessels. Id. Therefore, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to allow the use of distilled water in new appendix I1. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to allow the use of distilled water for testing in the new appendix I1. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal. For the reasons discussed, DOE determines that the use of distilled water would not significantly affect the measured energy use of a cooking top in comparison to test results that would be obtained using water with a hardness 35 While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) does not regulate the water hardness of drinking water, EPA has established non-mandatory Secondary Drinking Water Standards that provide limits on contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. These secondary standards specify a maximum limit of 500 milligrams/liter of total dissolved solids. The table of secondary standards is available at: www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-waterstandards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals#table. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 within potable limits. DOE therefore finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to allow the use of distilled water for testing in new appendix I1. c. Cooking Top Preparation Section 7.1.Z6.1 of EN 60350–2:2013 specifies that before the energy consumption measurement is conducted, the cooking top must be operated for at least 10 minutes to ensure that residual water in the components is vaporized. (Residual water may accumulate in the components during the manufacturing process, shipping, or storage of a unit.) In the past, DOE received questions from test laboratories on how frequently this cooking top pre-test preparation should be conducted. 86 FR 60974, 60982. Section 7.5.1 of both IEC 60350– 2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 include a similar requirement and clarify that this vaporization process need only be run once per tested unit. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that the vaporization process need only be run once per tested unit by adopting the provision in IEC 60350–2:2017 in new appendix I1. This was based on DOE’s preliminary determination that conducting the vaporization process once would be sufficient to eliminate residual water. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to include the cooking top preparation requirements for water vaporization from IEC 60350–2:2017 36 in its new appendix I1. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal. For the reasons discussed, DOE has determined that conducting the vaporization process once is sufficient to eliminate residual water. Therefore, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is including the cooking top preparation requirements for water vaporization in new appendix I1, changing the referenced test procedure to IEC 60350–2:2021. d. Optional Potential Simmering Setting Pre-Selection Test As discussed, DOE is adopting the water-heating methodology in IEC 60350–2:2021. This method requires the evaluation of an Energy Test Cycle, which consists of measuring energy consumption during an initial heat-up period and a subsequent 20-minute simmering period. Conducting the IEC 60350–2:2021 test method requires determining the simmering setting through repeated test cycles, each with 36 IEC 60350–2:2021 contains an identical provision. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51503 a successively higher input power setting after turndown, starting with the lowest input setting. This methodology can require a laboratory to conduct numerous test cycles before identifying the one in which the simmering period criteria are met. A draft version of IEC 60350–2:2021 included a new Annex H (‘‘draft Annex H’’), which provided an informative and optional test method for determining the potential simmering setting (i.e., the first setting used to conduct a simmering test in order to determine the simmering setting). Draft Annex H, available at the time of the November 2021 NOPR, stated that, for electric cooking tops, empirical test data show that the power density of the minimumabove-threshold power setting (i.e., simmering setting) is close to 0.8 watts per square centimeter (‘‘W/cm2’’).37 The method in draft Annex H provided a means to determine which power setting is closest to the target power density, and thus to more easily identify the first power setting that may be used for determining which power setting will be used for the Energy Test Cycle. In response to manufacturer concerns regarding the test burden of IEC 60350– 2:2017, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to include provisions in its new appendix I1 that mirrored the language of draft Annex H, with certain modifications to further reduce test burden. 86 FR 60974, 60985. DOE stated that in its testing experience, using this ‘‘pre-selection test’’ can significantly reduce the test burden of determining the simmering setting for the Energy Test Cycle. Id. Although this would represent an additional procedure, DOE stated that the overall testing time for a cooking top may be substantially shorter because performing the potential simmering setting pre-selection test can reduce the number of simmering test cycles necessary to determine the Energy Test Cycle from as many as 12 to as few as two.38 Id. In the November 2021 NOPR DOE proposed an approach consistent with that of draft Annex H. During the potential simmering setting preselection test, the power density measurement would need to be repeated for each successively higher power setting until the measured power 37 The power density is defined as the average wattage of the power setting over a 10-minute period divided by the area of the cookware bottom. 38 The potential simmering setting pre-selection tests takes 10 minutes per power setting tested (with no cooldown required between each test), whereas testing each setting as described in IEC 60350–2:2017 takes between 1 and 1.5 hours per power setting tested (including cooldown time between each test). E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51504 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations density exceeds the specified threshold power density. Id. The potential simmering setting would be one of the last two power settings tested (i.e., the last one that results in a power density below the threshold and the first one that results in a power density above the threshold. Whichever setting produces a power density closest to the threshold value would be the potential simmering setting. Id. The closest power density may be higher or lower than the applicable threshold value. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE also proposed a modification from draft Annex H to further reduce test burden while achieving the same end result as the procedure specified in draft Annex H. Id. at 86 FR 61008. As discussed, the objective of the pre-selection test is to determine which power setting is closest to providing the target power density of 0.8 W/cm2. Draft Annex H specified a starting water temperature of 20 ± 5 °C for the optional pre-selection test; however, the temperature of the water does not affect the power density of a particular power setting. The two parameters used to determine the power density are a measurement of the surface area of the bottom of the test vessel and the electrical energy consumption during the 10-minute test. The temperature of the water in the test vessel does not affect either of these measured values. Therefore, to reduce the test burden of the simmer setting pre-selection test, as part of its proposal DOE did not specify a water temperature condition for the start of the pre-selection test.39 Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE further proposed to make the potential simmering setting pre-selection test optional. Id. at 86 FR 60985. DOE proposed that if the tester has prior knowledge of the unit’s operation and has previously determined through a different method which power setting is the potential simmering setting, the tester may use that setting as the initial power setting for the test cycles. Id. Irrespective of the method used for determining the potential simmering setting, a valid test confirms whether the power setting under test meets the requirements of an Energy Test Cycle (see section III.E.3 of this document). Id. If a tester decides to use a different method to select the potential simmering setting, and chooses an incorrect power setting, the tester may then be required to conduct additional simmering tests to find the power setting that meets the requirements of an Energy Test Cycle. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to include the optional potential simmering setting preselection test in new appendix I1. Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal, if a tester has prior knowledge of the unit’s operation and has previously determined a potential simmering setting through a different method, to allow the tester to use that as the initial power setting for the test cycles. Id. The Joint Commenters supported DOE’s proposal to include an optional simmering setting pre-selection test for both electric and gas cooking top test procedures. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 3) The CA IOUs noted that the simmer setting preselection method and test modifications that reduce the need for possible retests will decrease test duration. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) The CA IOUs supported DOE’s efforts to reduce testing burden by shortening test duration from 36 to 17.5 hours while still maintaining a representative test procedure. (Id.) For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal from the November 2021 NOPR to include an optional potential simmering setting pre-selection test in new appendix I1 that mirrors the methodology specified in Annex H of IEC 60350–2:2021,40 with modifications as proposed and discussed above to further reduce test burden. DOE also finalizes its proposal from the November 2021 NOPR that if the tester has prior knowledge of the unit’s operation and has previously determined through a different method which power setting is the potential simmering setting, the tester may use that setting as the initial power setting for the test cycles. ‘‘standardized cookware categories’’ 41 that are used to group test vessels by diameter range. Sections 6.3 and 7.3 of IEC 60350– 2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specify a procedure to select the set of test vessels necessary to test an electric cooking top, based on if a cooking zone 42 or a cooking area 43 is being tested. The process requires determining the number of cooking zones based on the number of controls that can be operated independently at the same time. For cooking zones, a tester selects the test vessel based on the cooking zone dimension. To find the cooking zone dimension, the tester measures the marked area on the surface of the cooking top, irrespective of the size of the heating element. For circular cooking zones, the outermost diameter is used; for non-circular cooking zones, the shorter side or the minor axis is used. The tester then matches the cooking zone dimension to the outer diameter of a corresponding test vessel, using Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350– 2:2021, and makes an initial selection of the corresponding test vessel. For cooking areas, Annex A of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 defines the set of test vessels to use for testing all of the cooking zones on the cooking top, based on the number of cooking zones (i.e., the number of independent controls) within the cooking area. There are additional requirements for selecting the set of test vessels used for testing a cooking top. Both IEC 60350– 2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specify in Table 4 of Section 7.3 that for electric cooking tops with four or more controls, the set of test vessels used to test the cooking top must comprise at least three of the standardized cookware categories. If the initially selected test vessel set does not meet this criterion, a E. Modifications to IEC 60350–2:2021 Methodology To Reduce Testing Burden 39 See section III.F.5 of this document for a discussion of how this provision was extended to apply to gas cooking tops. 40 The methodology specified in Annex H of IEC 60350–2:2021 is the same as the methodology specified in draft Annex H. 41 The four categories are defined as A, B, C, and D. The vessel diameters associated with each category are as follows: Category A: 120 mm and 150 mm; Category B: 180 mm; Category C: 210 mm and 240 mm; and Category D: 270 mm, 300 mm, and 330 mm. 42 DOE defines a cooking zone in section 1 of new appendix I1 as a part of a conventional cooking top surface that is either a single electric resistance heating element, multiple concentric sizes of electric resistance heating elements, an inductive heating element, or a gas surface unit that is defined by limitative markings on the surface of the cooking top and can be controlled independently of any other cooking area or cooking zone. 43 DOE defines a cooking area in section 1 of new appendix I1 as an area on a conventional cooking top surface heated by an inducted magnetic field where cookware is placed for heating, where more than one cookware item can be used simultaneously and controlled separately from other cookware placed on the cooking area and that may or may not include limitative markings. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 1. Test Vessel Selection for Electric Cooking Tops Section 5.6.1 of both IEC 60350– 2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specifies a set of standardized cylindrical test vessels and respective lids of varying diameters, measured in millimeters (‘‘mm’’), that must be used for conducting the cooking top energy consumption tests. Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 defines four PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations substitution must be made using the next best-fitting test vessel from one of the other standardized cookware categories. If a selected test vessel size is out of the range of the sizes allowed by the user manual, the closest compatible diameter is to be used. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined through a market survey of electric cooking tops that the typical difference in diameter between the initial test vessel selection and the substituted test vessel is less than 30 mm. This suggests that the energy consumption will not substantially differ compared to using the test vessel whose diameter is closest to the heating element diameter. In addition, any corresponding difference in measured energy consumption for the entire cooking top will be even more minimal. 86 FR 60974, 60983. Through testing conducted in support of the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE also observed that in some tests, electric cooking tops were tested with the wrong set of test vessels. Id. DOE attributes this to the complex test vessel selection process. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require much simpler test vessel selection criteria for new appendix I1 to reduce the burden of implementing the test vessel selection procedure and thereby improve test procedure reproducibility. Id. Specifically, DOE proposed to require that for electric cooking tops with limitative markings, each cooking zone be tested with the test vessel that most closely matches the outer diameter of the marking, from among the test vessels defined in Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC 60350–2:2017. Id. For electric cooking tops without limitative markings, DOE proposed to use Table A.1 in Annex A of IEC 60350–2:2017 to determine the set of test vessels required, because without those markings, it is not possible to match the test vessel diameter to the marking’s diameter. Id. DOE also proposed to exclude the provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC 60350–2:2017 in new appendix I1 to ensure that these approaches are properly implemented. Id. If a selected test vessel cannot be centered on the cooking zone due to interference with a structural component of the cooking top (for example, a raised outer border), DOE proposed to require using the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be centered on the cooking zone. Id. This process of vessel selection would reflect the expected consumer practice of matching cookware to the size of a heating element (i.e., cookware is placed on the heating element that is the closest in size to the cookware). Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 DOE requested comment on its proposal to update the test vessel selection procedure. Again, for electric cooking tops with limitative markings, the proposal excludes the provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC 60350–2:2017 and instead requires that each cooking zone be tested with the test vessel that most closely matches the outer diameter of the marking. For electric cooking tops without limitative markings, DOE proposed that Table A.1 of Annex A of IEC 60350–2:2017 be used to define the test vessels. Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal for when a structural component of the cooking top interferes with the test vessel to substitute the largest test vessel that can be centered on the cooking zone. Id. NYSERDA supported DOE’s effort to simplify the test vessel selection process to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters agreed with the proposed test vessels and test vessel selection method for electric cooking tops. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters asserted that DOE’s proposal to exclude the provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC 60350–2:2017 and to simplify the test vessel selection criteria for electric cooking tops are reasonable methods for selecting test vessels. (Id.) The Joint Commenters stated that these proposals would improve reproducibility while simplifying the test vessel selection process for manufacturers. (Id.) The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to investigate methods for testing noncircular cooking zones to fully encapsulate the energy consumption of all cooking zones in the test procedure.44 (Id.) The CA IOUs commented on differences between the vessel selection methods depending on the fuel type of the cooktop. They noted that the electric cooking top test vessel selection criteria contain upper and lower bounds, but the gas cooking top test vessel criteria do not.45 (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 4) The CA IOUs stated that while they are unaware of existing electric cooking tops with heating elements outside of the included scope of diameters (i.e., between 100–330 mm), they do not see any reason that heating elements less than 100 mm or larger than 330 mm should be excluded. (Id.) The CA IOUs urged DOE to eliminate the lower and upper bounds of the electric test vessel 44 See further discussion of the definition of specialty cooking zones in section III.G.4 of this document. 45 See further comments from the CA IOUs regarding gas cooking top test vessel selection criteria in section III.F.3 of this document. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51505 selection criteria, stating that this would keep the electric and gas cooking top scopes consistent in terms of not excluding products purely based on their size or power rating. (Id.) In response to the CA IOUs’ comment comparing the scope of electric and gas cooking tops, DOE notes that in general, gas burners are able to be effectively used with a wider range of pot sizes than electric heating elements. An electric resistance heating element, can only provide effective heat transfer to the area of a pot in direct contact or line of sight with the element because the primary mechanism of heat transfer to the pot is through conduction (i.e., surface contact) or radiation. As such, the range of pot diameters that can be effectively used on an electric resistive heating element is limited by the diameter of the element. Conversely, for a gas burner, the flames are able to provide effective heat transfer to a wide range of pot sizes (and in particular, pots with a diameter substantially larger than the burner) because the primary mechanism of heat transfer to the pot is through convection (i.e., the movement of hot air around the base of the pot). As such, the diameter of a gas burner does not limit the range of pot diameters that can be effectively used. For these reasons, DOE has determined that it is appropriate for the test vessel selection table to define an upper bound for electric heating elements but not for gas burners. Regarding the lower bound defined for electric cooking tops, DOE notes that a heating element on an electric cooking top with a diameter smaller than 100 mm (3.9 inches) would likely not be able to heat water to 90 °C. As such, it would likely be excluded from testing because it would be a specialty cooking zone (e.g., a warming plate or zone). For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its test vessel selection proposal from the November 2021 NOPR. Again, on an electric cooking top, tests must use the test vessels according to Table 3 of Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC 60350–2:2021 and, if a structural component of the cooking top interferes with the test vessel, substitute the largest test vessel that can be centered on the cooking zone. DOE further specifies that if a structural component of the cooking top interferes with the test vessel such that a test vessel’s lid cannot be centered on the test vessel due to interference with a structural component of the cooking top, the instruction to substitute the largest test vessel that can be centered on the cooking zone applies. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed different instructions for E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51506 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 determining test vessel selection in the preamble and regulatory text for cooking areas with limitative markings that differed from the instructions for cooking areas without limitative markings. The preamble was correct; the proposed regulatory text was incorrect. As discussed previously in this section, for cooking areas (regardless of limitative markings), Annex A of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350– 2:2021 defines the set of test vessels to be used for testing based on the number of cooking zones (i.e., the number of independent controls) within the cooking area. As indicated by the discussion in section III.C.1 of the preamble to the November 2021 NOPR, DOE intended to propose the same test vessel selection requirements as specified in IEC 60350–2:2017; i.e., to use Annex A of IEC 60350–2:2017 to determine the correct test vessel for testing cooking areas with or without limitative markings.46 86 FR 60974, 60983. Although the preamble stated Annex A, the regulatory text for cooking areas with limitative markings incorrectly proposed to use Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC 60350–2:2017. That section corresponds instead to the instructions for circular ‘‘cooking zones.’’ Id. at 86 FR 61009. In this final rule, DOE corrects this error and specifies that for all cooking areas, the test vessel section is based on the number of cooking zones and as specified in Annex A of IEC 60350– 2:2021. There was another error in the regulatory text as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. It incorrectly implied that all cooking zones are circular, by requiring measuring their diameter. Id. For a non-circular cooking zone, measuring a ‘‘diameter’’ would not be appropriate, since ‘‘diameter’’ is a dimension limited to a circle. In this final rule, DOE provides instructions for measuring the size of a non-circular cooking zone 47 and selecting the appropriate test vessel, consistent with the language in Section 7.3 of IEC 60350–2:2021. DOE also specifies how to determine the cooking zone size. For circular cooking zones, use the outer diameter of the printed marking, and for non-circular cooking zones, use the 46 The only intended difference between the proposed appendix I1 and IEC 60350–2:2017 was the removal of the ‘‘categories’’ requirement in Section 7.3 of IEC 60350–2:2017. 47 DOE makes a distinction between non-circular cooking zones designed for use with any type of cookware (which are discussed in this section), and cooking zones designed for use only with noncircular cookware (which are considered specialty cooking zones, as discussed in section III.G.4 of this document). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 measurement of the shorter (i.e., minor) axis. As part of the 2021 Round Robin, DOE learned that some technicians are uncertain about how to measure the size of an open coil heating element, because open coils are not perfect circles.48 Indeed, the approach to measure the size of a heating element depends on whether a technician considers the open coil heating elements as circular. If so, the largest diameter would be used to determine the appropriate test vessel, according to Section 6.3.2 of IEC 60350– 2:2021. If not, a technician uses the short axis of the ellipse (‘‘the minor dimension’’) to determine the appropriate test vessel, according to Sections 6.3.2 and 7.3 of IEC 60350– 2:2021. DOE understands that industry practice is to use the largest diameter of an open coil heating element, as presented in Figure 60A.2 of UL 858. In this final rule, DOE clarifies that open coil heating elements are to be treated as circular, and that the largest diameter is used to determine the appropriate test vessel and incorporates an illustration similar to Figure 60A.2 of UL 858. 2. Temperature Specifications a. Room Temperature Section 5.1 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specifies an ambient room temperature of 23 ± 2 °C for testing. DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it was aware that conducting energy testing on cooking tops in the same conditioned space that safety testing is conducted could significantly reduce testing burden, based on discussions with cooking top manufacturers as part of the Task Force. 86 FR 60974, 60983. Section 40 of UL 858, a relevant safety standard for cooking tops, requires a room temperature of 25 ± 5 °C for certain safety testing that manufacturers are likely conducting. The IEC ambient room temperature specifications (23 ± 2 °C) are within the range allowed by UL 858 (25 ± 5 °C). DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it did not expect that the slightly different nominal value and larger tolerance on the ambient room temperature (corresponding to the range 48 As an example of this lack of clarity, one of the test laboratories in the 2021 Round Robin measured a diameter 3mm smaller than the other two laboratories on one heating element size of one cooking top. As a result, the test laboratories used different test vessel sizes. DOE cannot confirm the source of this difference. However, based on an inspection of the coil heating element in question, it is DOE’s understanding that one laboratory measured the diameter as the smallest width of the coil, and the other two laboratories measured the diameter as the largest width of the coil, perpendicular to the first laboratory’s measurement. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 allowed by UL 858) would significantly impact the measured cooking top energy consumption. Id. This was based on DOE’s understanding of the primary heat transfer mechanisms to the water load. Those mechanisms are conduction to the test vessel for electric-coil cooking tops; radiation for electricsmooth cooking tops other than induction type; joule heating in the test vessel itself by induced eddy currents for electric-smooth induction cooking tops; and convective heat transfer from the flames and conduction from the grates for gas cooking tops. DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that expanding the ambient temperature tolerance to match that used for safety testing (i.e., 25 ± 5 °C) would be warranted and would not impact repeatability or reproducibility of the test procedure, due to this relatively minimal impact on testing results and the potential for significant reduction in test burden on manufacturers. Id. Manufacturers in the Task Force raised concerns that test laboratories could consistently test at the extremes of the temperature tolerances. To address those concerns, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to specify that the target ambient room temperature is the nominal midpoint of the temperature range. Id. DOE proposed to specify in new appendix I1 an ambient room temperature of 25 ± 5 °C, with a target temperature of 25 °C. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to specify an ambient room temperature of 25 ± 5 °C. Id. The Joint Commenters supported a target ambient room temperature specification of 25 °C, but expressed concern that it may not prevent test laboratories from testing at extremes of the ±5 °C tolerance, which they stated could potentially affect reproducibility. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to consider providing instructions on how to best reach the target temperature or more specificity around what it means to target the midpoint of the temperature range. (Id.) NEEA commented that DOE should set a more rigorous ambient temperature specification during the active mode test, stating that an ambient temperature specification of 25 ± 5 °C is too wide to ensure repeatability. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 1) NEEA commented that specifying a target ambient temperature of 25 °C may not prevent tests from being conducted at the extremes of that range, and that it is unclear whether the differences in applying the current methodology at 20 °C and 30 °C are insignificant. (Id.) According to NEEA, an ambient E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 temperature tolerance such as ±3 °C should not prove overly burdensome for testing, stating that ASTM food service standards typically have a ±5 degrees Fahrenheit (‘‘°F’’) tolerance on ambient temperature. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that there is no requirement to maintain the ambient temperature close to the ‘‘target’’ value of 25 °C. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE include an additional requirement that the average ambient temperature throughout the test remain within 25 ± 2 °C to provide consistency with the target temperature and to improve repeatability and reproducibility. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that this specification would be in addition to the 25 ± 5 °C maximum and minimum ambient temperature requirements. (Id.) AHAM agreed with DOE’s proposal to maintain an ambient room air temperature of 25 ± 5 °C with a target temperature of 25 °C. AHAM stated that it is consistent with the U.S. safety standard for electric cooking tops, UL 858, and that this provision would reduce test burden and allow manufacturers to use existing laboratories for testing to the DOE test procedure. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12) DOE’s 2021 Round Robin testing was conducted in accordance with the ambient room air temperature specification of 25 ± 5 °C, as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. As discussed, it produced repeatable and reproducible results. DOE further notes that testing for the 2021 Round Robin was conducted in facilities that also perform safety testing requiring ambient room air temperatures of 25 ± 5 °C, such as the UL 858 standard. Reducing the allowable range for the ambient room air temperature or adding a secondary tolerance to the average ambient room air temperature would add undue burden to the cooking top test procedure depending on the laboratory’s equipment. Based on the foregoing discussion, DOE determines that an ambient room temperature specification of 25 ± 5 °C provides repeatable and reproducible results without being unduly burdensome. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to specify an ambient room temperature of 25 ± 5 °C in new appendix I1. b. Product Starting Temperature Section 5.5 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specifies that the conventional cooking top unit under test must be at the laboratory’s ambient temperature at the beginning of each test. To assist in reducing the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 temperature from a prior test, forced cooling may be used. This provision ensures a repeatable starting temperature of the cooking top before testing. If a cooking top is warmer or colder than the ambient temperature, it would consume a different amount of energy during testing than one that is at the ambient temperature. Section 5.5 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350– 2:2021, however, does not specify how to measure the temperature of the product before each test. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that the product temperature must be stable, DOE also proposed to define that as ‘‘a temperature that does not vary by more than 1 °C over a 5-minute period.’’ 86 FR 60974, 60984. DOE also proposed to bar using forced cooling during the period of time used to assess temperature stability. Id. DOE further proposed to specify where to measure the temperature of the product. Id. Before any active mode testing, the product temperature would be measured at the center of the cooking zone under test. Before the standby mode and off mode power test,49 the product temperature would be measured as the average of the temperature measured at the center of each cooking zone. Id. DOE requested comments on its proposal to require that the product temperature be stable, its proposed definition of a stable temperature, and its proposed methods for measuring the product temperature for active mode testing as well as standby mode and off mode power testing. Id. The CA IOUs commented that specifying the initial starting temperature of the cooking zone is a key change that would increase repeatability of the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 1–2) The Joint Commenters supported DOE’s proposal to require that the product temperature not vary by more than 1 °C over a 5-minute period. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2) For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal to require that the product temperature be stable, its proposed definition of a stable temperature, and its proposed methods for measuring the product temperature for active mode testing as well as standby mode and off mode power testing. c. Initial Water Temperature Section 7.5.1 of both IEC 60350– 2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specifies 49 See section III.I of this document for discussion of the standby mode and off mode power test. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51507 an initial water temperature of 15 ± 0.5 °C, and that the test vessel must not be stored in a refrigerator to avoid the rims getting ‘‘too cold.’’ As part of conversations within the Task Force in which DOE has participated, manufacturers expressed concerns regarding the test burden of maintaining a supply of water for test loads that is colder than the ambient temperature, especially when the test vessels cannot be placed in a refrigerator before testing. 86 FR 60974, 60984. As discussed, DOE is specifying an ambient room temperature of 25 ± 5 °C. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it expects that using an initial nominal water temperature of 25 °C, rather than the IEC-specified 15 °C, would not impact the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id. Furthermore, DOE stated that it expects that an initial nominal water temperature of 25 °C may more accurately represent an average temperature of food or water loads with which consumers would fill their cookware before starting to cook. Id. DOE surmised that consumers would be expected to fill cookware not only with refrigerated foods or water from the cold water supply (i.e., food and water loads at 15 °C or lower), but also with water from the hot water supply and food items at room temperature (i.e., food and water loads at 25 °C or higher). Id. DOE also tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that, although a different initial nominal water temperature would be appropriate, it is critical to maintain the tolerance of ± 0.5 °C on the initial water temperature as specified by IEC 60350– 2:2017 so that the energy consumption during the initial heat-up phase to 90 °C is repeatable and reproducible. Id. In summary, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in new appendix I1 that the water must have an initial temperature of 25 ± 0.5 °C. Id. DOE requested comment on this proposal. Id. The CA IOUs and Joint Comments supported the proposed initial water temperature specifications to minimize variability when testing. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 1–2; Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2) AHAM commented that it tentatively believes that the proposed initial water temperature of 25 ± 0.5 °C tolerance is too small and creates excessive test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12) AHAM is collecting data on potentially expanding the water temperature tolerance to ±1 °C, and stated that DOE should consider its results before publishing a final rule. (Id.) AHAM asserted that it is not feasible for a tester E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51508 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations to maintain the proposed tolerance, as water temperature can rise above the tolerance between the time when the water is brought to the appliance and when the test is started. (Id.) While DOE has not yet received any data from AHAM on this issue, DOE encourages AHAM to send any data when it becomes available. DOE notes that the 2021 Round Robin, which DOE has concluded resulted in repeatable and reproducible results, used a ±0.5 °C tolerance on the initial water temperature, as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. DOE is not aware of any of the test laboratories that participated in the 2021 Round Robin having had any difficulty maintaining the ± 0.5 °C tolerance on the initial water temperature. In DOE’s experience, the alignment of the nominal ambient temperature and of the nominal initial water temperature at 25 °C, has reduced the burden associated with the ±0.5 °C tolerance on the initial water temperature, as compared to the specification in both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021. For example, in DOE’s experience, if the ambient temperature is maintained at the nominal value of 25 °C and the test vessel is kept in the test room and not placed on a cooking zone that is turned on, the water in the test vessel will remain within the required 25 ± 0.5 °C for 10–30 minutes. For these reasons, DOE determines that maintaining a tolerance of ±0.5 °C on the initial water temperature is not unduly burdensome. Furthermore, DOE confirms its tentative determination from the November 2021 NOPR that it is critical to maintain the tolerance of ± 0.5 °C on the initial water temperature as specified by IEC 60350–2:2017 so that the energy consumption during the initial heat-up phase to 90 °C is repeatable and reproducible. DOE also confirms its tentative determination from the November 2021 NOPR that it would not be feasible to normalize the measured energy consumption to reflect different starting water temperatures due to the non-linearity of the water temperature curve during the initial portion of the test. A wider initial water temperature tolerance of ±1 °C, as suggested by AHAM, would reduce the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure and would seemingly contradict AHAM’s comment that DOE’s efforts to reduce variation have not reduced variation enough for certain parts of the test procedure (see section III.C of this document). For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal from the November 2021 NOPR to specify an initial water temperature of 25 ± 0.5 °C. 50 DOE defines a valid simmering test as one for which the test conditions in section 2 of appendix I1 are met and the measured turndown temperature, Tc, is within ¥0.5 °C and +1 °C of the target turndown temperature. 86 FR 60974, 60985. See section III.G.5 of this document for definitions of turndown temperature and target turndown temperature. 51 In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE defined t 90 in this context as the start of the simmering period VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 3. Determination of the Simmering Setting IEC 60350–2:2021 adds a clause to Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2:2017 stating that if the smoothened water temperature is below 90 °C during the simmering period, the energy consumption measurement shall be repeated with an increased power setting. The new clause also adds that if the smoothened water temperature is above 91 °C during the simmering period, the test cycle is repeated using the next lower power setting and checked to ensure that the lowest possible power setting that remains above 90 °C is identified for the Energy Test Cycle. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it infers from this new clause that if the smoothened water temperature does not drop below 90 °C or rise above 91 °C during the simmering period, no additional testing is needed. 86 FR 60974, 60985. This new clause provides clarity as to what setting is ‘‘as close to 90 °C as possible,’’ as required in Section 7.5.2.2 of IEC 60350–2:2017, and therefore improves the reproducibility of the simmering setting determination. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed two power setting definitions. First, the ‘‘maximum-below-threshold power setting’’ would be ‘‘the power setting on a conventional cooking top that is the highest power setting that results in smoothened water temperature data that does not meet the evaluation criteria specified in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2:2017.’’ Second, the ‘‘minimum-above-threshold power setting’’ would be ‘‘the power setting on a conventional cooking top that is the lowest power setting that results in smoothened water temperature data that meet the evaluation criteria specified in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2:2017. This power setting is also referred to as the simmering setting.’’ Id. DOE also proposed to include a flow chart (see Figure III.1) in new appendix I1 that would require identifying the maximum-below-threshold power setting and the minimum-above- PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 threshold power setting (or the simmering setting) from any valid 50 simmering test conducted according to Section 7.5.2 of IEC 60350–2:2017, as follows: (1) If the smoothened temperature does not exceed 91 °C or drop below 90 °C at any time in the 20-minute period following t90,51 the power setting under test is considered to be the simmering setting, and no further evaluation or testing is required. The test is considered the Energy Test Cycle. (2) If the smoothened temperature exceeds 91 °C and does not drop below 90 °C at any time in the 20-minute period following t90, the power setting under test is considered to be above the threshold power setting. The simmering test is repeated using the next lower power setting, after allowing the product temperature to return to ambient conditions, until two consecutive power settings have been determined to be above the threshold power setting and below the threshold power setting, respectively. These power settings are considered to be the minimum-above-threshold power setting and the maximum-belowthreshold power setting, respectively. The energy consumption representative of an Energy Test Cycle is calculated based on an interpolation of the energy use of both of these cycles, as discussed in section III.E.4 of this document. (3) If the smoothened temperature drops below 90 °C at any time in the 20minute period following t90, the power setting under test is considered to be below the threshold power setting. The simmering test is repeated using the next higher power setting, after allowing the product temperature to return to ambient conditions, until two consecutive power settings have been determined to be above the threshold power setting and below the threshold power setting, respectively. These power settings are considered to be the minimum-above-threshold power setting and the maximum-belowthreshold power setting, respectively. The energy consumption representative of an Energy Test Cycle is calculated based on an interpolation of the energy use of both of these cycles, as discussed in section III.E.4 of this document. 86 FR 60974, 60985–60986. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P and as the time at which the smoothened water temperature first meets or exceeds 90 °C. Id. at 86 FR 60986. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 BILLING CODE 6450–01–C DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of the minimumabove-threshold power setting and the maximum-below-threshold power setting, and on its proposed methodology for determining the simmering setting. Id. at 86 FR 60986. NYSERDA supported the proposal to clarify which setting is as close to 90 °C as possible for the simmering period to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2) The CA IOUs appreciated the flow chart in Figure 3.1.4.5 of the November 2021 NOPR that specifies the simmering test process. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 8) For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of the minimum-above-threshold power setting and maximum-below-threshold power setting.52 Within these finalized 52 In the finalized definition of maximum-belowpower threshold power setting, the phrase ‘‘data that does not meet’’ is changed to ‘‘data that do not meet’’ to mirror the phrasing used in the definition of minimum-above-threshold power setting. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 definitions, DOE references IEC 60350– 2:2021 rather than IEC 60350–2:2017, noting that the definitions are the same in each version. DOE also finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed methodology for determining the simmering setting. To provide additional clarity to the test procedure, in this final rule DOE is moving the definitions of certain terms from section 3 of appendix I1 (as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR) to section 1 of appendix I1. These terms include: the turndown temperature (Tc), the target turndown temperature (Tctarget), the simmering period, and the time t90 (the start of the simmering period).53 In appendix I1, DOE is defining the time t90 as ‘‘the first instant during the simmering test for each cooking zone where the smoothened water temperature is greater than or equal to 90 °C,’’ consistent with the definition in section 3.3.1.3.3.4, as 53 See section III.G.5 of this document for the definitions of the turndown temperature (Tc) and the target turndown temperature (Tctarget). PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51509 proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. In appendix I1, DOE is also defining the simmering period for each cooking zone as ‘‘the 20-minute period during the simmering test starting at time t90,’’ consistent with the definition in section 3.3.1.3.3.5, as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. DOE is also simplifying the language of sections 3.1.4.5, 3.3.1.3.3, 3.3.1.3.3.3, 3.3.1.3.3.4, and 3.3.1.3.3.5 of appendix I1, to reflect the inclusion of these definitions in section 1 of appendix I1, by removing redundant phrases. DOE also finalizes the use of a flow chart in Figure 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 that describes how to evaluate the simmering setting, similar to the one proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. The flow chart in Figure 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 in this final rule uses updated formatting to standardize the shape of the boxes, to provide additional arrows where clarity on the sequence of actions was needed, and to replace the gray background of certain text boxes with a bolded border to increase legibility. The new flow chart E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 ER22AU22.000</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 51510 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 in Figure 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 also uses streamlined language to reflect the new definition of simmering period and of turndown temperature, and to use more direct questions. For example, the text ‘‘Does the smoothened water temperature drop below 90 °C at any time in the 20-minute period following t90 (as defined in section 3.3.1.3.3.4 of this appendix)?’’ is replaced with simpler text that conveys the same question using the wording ‘‘Is the smoothened water temperature ≤ 90 °C at any time during the simmering period?’’ 4. Normalizing Per-Cycle Energy Use for the Final Water Temperature As discussed in section III.E.3 of this document, the test conduct can conclude with either one or two cycles. A single Energy Test Cycle in which the smoothened water temperature during the simmering period remains between 90 °C and 91 °C is one possibility. Otherwise, a pair of cycles designated as the minimum-above-threshold cycle and the maximum-below-threshold cycle is identified. In the minimum-abovethreshold cycle, as defined above, the smoothened water temperature remains at or above 90 °C for the entire 20minute simmering period, and the smoothened water temperature exceeds 91 °C for at least one second of the simmering period. Conversely, in the maximum-below-threshold cycle, as defined above, the smoothened water temperature does not remain at or above 90 °C during the entire 20-minute simmering period, and the smoothened water temperature drops below 90 °C for at least one second of the simmering period. In both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021, the energy use of a cooking zone is calculated based on such a minimum-above-threshold cycle, regardless of the amount by which the smoothened water temperature exceeds 90 °C during the simmering period. In conversations as part of the Task Force in which DOE has participated, some manufacturers expressed concerns that a test cycle with a water temperature at the end of the simmering period (i.e., a ‘‘final water temperature’’) that is above 91 °C may not be comparable to a test cycle with a final water temperature that is closer to 90 °C. The higher the final temperatures, the greater the risk; there is no limit on how far above 91 °C the final water temperature may be (as long as the setting is the minimum-above-threshold cycle). 86 FR 60974, 60986. In addition, this concern is particularly relevant to cooking tops with a small number of discrete power settings that result in relatively large differences in final water VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 temperature between each setting. Id. In addition, for cooking tops with continuous (i.e., infinite) power settings, repeatably identifying the minimumabove-threshold cycle is particularly challenging.54 Id. To reduce test burden for cooking tops with infinite power settings, and to provide comparable energy use for all cooking tops including those with discrete power settings, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to normalize the energy use of the minimum-above-threshold cycle to represent an Energy Test Cycle with a final water temperature of exactly 90 °C. DOE proposed using an interpolation of the energy use of the maximum-belowthreshold cycle and the respective final smoothened water temperatures. Id. For test cycles for which the smoothened water temperature during the simmering period does not exceed 91 °C, DOE also proposed not to perform this normalization for two reasons. First, IEC 60350–2:2017 does not require the next lowest power setting to be tested under these circumstances. Second, DOE had tentatively determined the extra test burden would not be warranted by the resulting small adjustment to the energy use. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE further posited that the normalization calculation would not be possible under two scenarios. One scenario is the minimum-above-threshold power setting is the lowest available power setting on the cooking zone under test. A second is the smoothened water temperature during the maximumbelow-threshold power setting does not meet or exceed 90 °C during a 20minute period following the time the power setting is reduced. Id. Under either of these circumstances, DOE proposed that the minimum-abovethreshold power setting test be the Energy Test Cycle. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to normalize the energy use of the tested cycle if the smoothened water temperature exceeds 91 °C during the simmering period, to represent an Energy Test Cycle with a final water temperature of 90 °C. Id. DOE specifically requested comment on its proposal to use the smoothened final water temperature to perform this normalization and on whether a different normalization method would be more appropriate. Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal not to require the normalization under any of three circumstances: when the 54 See section III.G.3 of this document for further discussion of the methodology for cooking tops with infinite power settings. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 smoothened water temperature remains between 90 °C and 91 °C during the simmering period, when the minimumabove-threshold power setting is the lowest available power setting on the cooking zone under test, or when the smoothened water temperature during the maximum-below-threshold power setting does not meet or exceed 90 °C during a 20-minute period following the time the power setting is reduced. Id. NEEA supported normalizing the calculated energy of the Energy Test Cycle to maintain comparable temperatures. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that the normalizing methodology would increase repeatability of the simmering test. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 1–2) The CA IOUs commented that it appears that one pathway 55 on the flow chart in proposed Figure 3.1.4.5 does not align with the requirement for a simmering test to maintain a temperature between 90 and 91 °C throughout the simmering test, or, if that is not possible, for the two dial/knob positions that bound 56 this temperature condition to be tested. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 8) The CA IOUs recommended that the flow chart be fixed to match the verbiage within the test methodology. (Id.) In response to the CA IOUs’ concern, DOE confirms that the flowchart pathway highlighted by the CA IOUs correctly reflects the intent of the test procedure as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR and as finalized in this final rule. In performing the complete test procedure, there are three circumstances which will cause the test to conclude with only a single Energy Test Cycle, as opposed to a pair of cycles designated as the minimum-above-threshold cycle and the maximum-below-threshold cycle. First, if the smoothened water temperature does not drop below 90 °C or rise above 91 °C during the simmering period, then no normalization is required. Second, if the lowest power setting available on the cooking zone under test is determined to be the minimum-above-threshold power setting, then no lower setting is available to be considered the maximum-below-threshold power setting. Third, if the maximum-belowthreshold power setting is unable to achieve a smoothened water temperature of 90 °C (i.e., does not have 55 The pathway highlighted visually by the CA IOUs as part of this comment is the pathway wherein the smoothened water temperature during the maximum-below-threshold power setting does not meet or exceed 90 °C during a 20-minute period following the time the power setting is reduced. 56 The CA IOUs’ comment used the word ‘‘bind.’’ DOE understands the CA IOUs’ comment to have meant to use the word ‘‘bound’’ instead of ‘‘bind.’’ E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations a definable simmer period), then no normalization can be performed and the Energy Test Cycle consists only of the minimum-above-threshold power setting. The pathway highlighted by the CA IOUs reflects the second pathway. In summary, DOE finalizes its November 2021 proposals related to normalizing the energy use of the tested cycle. First, if the smoothened water temperature exceeds 91 °C during the simmering period, the tested cycle’s energy consumption is normalized to represent an Energy Test Cycle with a final water temperature of 90 °C. Second, testers must use the smoothened final water temperature to perform this normalization. Third, under any of the following three conditions, normalization is not required: (A) the smoothened water temperature remains between 90 °C and 91 °C during the simmering period, (B) the minimum-above-threshold power setting is the lowest available power setting on the cooking zone under test, or (C) the smoothened water temperature during the maximumbelow-threshold power setting does not meet or exceed 90 °C. In this final rule, DOE also clarifies the language in the flow chart in Figure 3.1.4.5 of new appendix I1 to address the situation in which tests occur in a different order. If the first simmering test is conducted with a power setting above the threshold power setting and the second simmering test is one in which the smoothened water temperature does not equal or exceed 90 °C during the simmering phase, it is not necessary to perform the first test again. Instead, a tester evaluates the subsequent flow chart questions using the previously conducted test cycle. DOE further updates the flow chart language to align the language in all three boxes that state that no further testing is necessary. This will clarify the next steps (i.e., calculations) to perform after testing is complete. For flow chart paths ending with a determination that the test is the Energy Test Cycle, the last sentence of the text box is updated to read ‘‘the test is the Energy Test Cycle, for use in section 4 of this appendix.’’ For flow chart paths ending with a determination of a maximum-belowthreshold power setting and a minimum-above-threshold power setting, the last sentence of the text box is updated to read ‘‘these power settings are the maximum-below-threshold power setting and the minimum-abovethreshold power setting, respectively, for use in section 4 of this appendix.’’ DOE has removed all mention of normalization from the flow chart itself, and instead addresses normalization VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 only within section 4 of appendix I1 (‘‘Calculation of Derived Results from Test Measurements’’). Finally, since publishing the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is aware that the Task Force has identified a means for reducing test burden when conducting a test cycle on a power setting for which the water temperature does not reach 90 °C. In the September 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the determination of whether the smoothened water temperature meets or exceeds 90 °C would be made after a 20minute time period following the time the power setting is reduced (i.e., ‘‘turndown’’). Two of the question boxes in the proposed flowchart in Figure 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 reflect this. As considered by the Task Force, and consistent with DOE’s internal testing experience, a 10-minute period following turndown would be sufficient to confirm test settings that will not reach 90 °C. On such settings, the temperature continues to rise only for a few minutes following turndown, after which the temperature either stabilizes or starts to decrease. On such settings, if the smoothened water temperature has not reached 90 °C by the time it stabilizes or starts to decrease (which occurs a few minutes after turndown), the cycle will not meet or exceed 90 °C. DOE understands that for this reason, the Task Force has updated AHAM’s draft test procedure to require only a 10minute period to determine whether a simmering test meets or exceeds 90 °C following turndown. DOE’s testing experience confirms that a 10-minute period is more than sufficient to determine whether the water temperature will meet or exceed 90 °C following turndown. Since this change would reduce test burden while maintaining the same end result of the test, DOE incorporates this change into this final rule, as reflected in updated langue to the flowchart in Figure 3.1.4.5. F. Extension of Methodology to Gas Cooking Tops DOE implemented a methodology for testing gas cooking tops in the December 2016 Final Rule, which was based on test provisions in the European Standard EN 30–2–1:1998, ‘‘Domestic cooking appliances burning gas—Part 2– 1: Rational use of energy—General’’ (‘‘EN 30–2–1’’) and EN 60350–2:2013 (extended to testing gas cooking tops). 81 FR 91418, 91422. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed a test procedure for testing gas cooking tops based on EN 30–2–1 and IEC 60350– 2:2017 (extended to testing gas cooking tops), but with additional provisions to clarify testing requirements and PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51511 improve the reproducibility of test results for gas cooking tops. 86 FR 60974, 60987. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that round robin testing of gas cooking tops suggests that a test procedure based on IEC 60350– 2:2017 and EN 30–2–1, with modification as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR, would provide test results with acceptable repeatability and reproducibility for gas cooking tops. Id. As discussed, in the December 2021 NODA, DOE presented test data from the 2021 Round Robin showing that the repeatability COV for gas cooking tops testing according to the procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR was under 2 percent, and the reproducibility COV for gas cooking tops was largely under 4 percent, with a maximum of 5.3 percent. 86 FR 71406, 71407–71408. Samsung generally supported unifying the cooking top test procedure as much as possible across fuel types, including both gas and electric, to allow comparison of efficiency across the fuel types. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 2) Samsung suggested that due to the higher COVs measured for gas cooking tops than for electric cooking tops, DOE should establish a wider certification and compliance tolerance for gas cooking tops than electric cooking tops when establishing energy conservation standards. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 3) Samsung commented that DOE should alternatively continue to improve on the gas test procedure and move forward in finalizing the proposed test procedure for electric cooking tops. (Id.) Samsung stated that a finalized test procedure for electric cooking tops could help advance ENERGY STAR recognition of induction cooking tops in the near future, which could lead to significant potential decarbonization and electrification through induction cooking. (Id.) AHAM asserted that manufacturers do not believe it is appropriate to use the same test procedure for gas and electric cooking tops, stating that the technologies and components are different between the two product types and that the use of the same test method is unlikely to reduce variation. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17) AHAM stated that it cannot comment on whether or not DOE’s gas cooking top test results are representative of factory shipments and sales. (Id.) AHAM noted that different constructions will yield a variety of different results, especially considering different burner ratings and thicknesses of the grate. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 9) In response to Samsung’s comment, in lieu of establishing certification E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51512 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations tolerances, DOE regulations instead specify methods for statistically evaluating a sample plan to ensure that products meet the relevant standard. Any represented value of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values (such as annual energy use) must be greater than or equal to the higher of the mean of the sample or the upper 97.5 percent confidence limit of the true mean divided by 1.05 (see section III.L.1 of this document). In response to AHAM’s comments, DOE has acknowledged the need to include unique provisions in the test procedure to account for whether the unit being tested is a gas or electric cooking top. Notably, DOE has specified a procedure for adjusting the burner heat input rate for gas cooking tops, as discussed in section III.F.4 of this document. As illustrated by the 2021 Round Robin test results, these specifications have resulted in a cooking top test procedure that has significantly reduced variability as compared to the test procedure finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule. DOE also notes that units used in the round robin testing were not intended to be reflective of any particular shipment or sales distribution except to the extent that a broad range of manufacturers were represented. DOE will address the market distribution of cooking top efficiencies as part of its ongoing energy conservation standards analysis. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 1. Gas Test Conditions In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the supply pressure immediately ahead of all controls of the gas cooking top under test must be between 7 and 10 inches of water column for testing with natural gas, and between 11 and 13 inches of water column for testing with propane. 86 FR 60974, 60987. DOE further proposed that the higher heating value of natural gas be approximately 1,025 Btu per standard cubic foot, and that the higher heating value of propane be approximately 2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot. Id. These values are consistent with industry standards, and other DOE test procedures for gas-fired appliances. DOE also proposed to define a standard cubic foot of gas as ‘‘the quantity of gas that occupies 1 cubic foot when saturated with water vapor at a temperature of 60 °F and a pressure of 14.73 pounds per square inch (101.6 kPa).’’ Id. Standard cubic feet are used to measure the energy use of a gas appliance in a repeatable manner by correcting for potential variation in the gas line conditions. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 DOE requested comment on its proposed test conditions for gas cooking tops, and its proposed definition of a standard cubic foot of gas. Id. AHAM agreed with the proposed natural gas and propane heating value definitions. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12) For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed test conditions for gas cooking tops, and its proposed definition of a standard cubic foot of gas. 2. Gas Supply Instrumentation a. Gas Meter In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in new appendix I1 a gas meter for testing gas cooking tops. The proposal was identical to the provision in the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule. That provision read as follows: the gas meter used for measuring gas consumption must have a resolution of 0.01 cubic foot or less and a maximum error no greater than 1 percent of the measured valued for any demand greater than 2.2 cubic feet per hour. 86 FR 60974, 60987. DOE requested comment on its proposed instrumentation specifications for gas cooking tops, including the gas meter, and any cost burden for manufacturers who may not already have the required instrumentation. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed specifications for the gas meter used in new appendix I1. For the reasons presented in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE finalizes its proposed specifications for the gas meter used in new appendix I1. b. Correction Factor In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include in section 4.1.1.2.1 of new appendix I1 the formula for the correction factor to standard temperature and pressure conditions. This was a change from the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, which referenced the U.S. Bureau of Standards Circular C417, 1938, (‘‘C417’’). 86 FR 60974, 60987. DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that by providing this explicit formula, it expects to reduce the potential for confusion or miscalculations. Id. Measuring the gas temperature and line pressure 57 are required to calculate the correction factor to standard temperature and pressure conditions. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE 57 If line pressure is measured as gauge pressure, the absolute pressure is the sum of that value and the barometric pressure. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 proposed to specify the instrumentation to do so. Id. DOE proposed to require that the instrument for measuring the gas line temperature have a maximum error no greater than ±2 °F over the operating range and that the instrument for measuring the gas line pressure have a maximum error no greater than 0.1 inches of water column. Id. These requirements are consistent with the gas temperature and line pressure requirements from the test procedures at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices N and E, for gas-fired furnaces and for gas-fired water heaters, respectively. DOE requested comment on its proposed instrumentation specifications for gas cooking tops, including for measuring gas temperature and pressure, and any cost burden for manufacturers who may not already have the required instrumentation. Id. UL observed that the accuracy of the gas line pressure meter is specified in the proposed test procedure but that the accuracy of the barometric pressure reading is not specified. (UL, No. 17 at p. 2) UL commented that the barometric pressure reading is not necessary if the gas pressure is measured as absolute pressure. (Id.) UL recommended that DOE specify an accuracy for the sum of the barometric pressure and gas pressure measurements and for the barometric pressure measurement. (Id.) UL commented that if an accuracy requirement is specified only for the barometric pressure, then DOE should provide guidance for how to combine the two accuracies. (Id.) UL also commented that any pressure measurements that reference a height of liquid should specify the temperature of the liquid, or whether it is ‘‘conventional.’’ (UL, No. 17 at pp. 2–3) UL commented that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (‘‘NIST’’) provides three possible conversion factors when working with inches of mercury or inches of water, depending on the condition of the liquid. (UL, No. 17 at p. 2) UL commented that the value of Pbase, the standard sea level air pressure, specified in section 4.1.1.2.1 of proposed appendix I1 (408.13 inches of water) is different than in the gas calorimeter tables in C417 and does not seem to match any typical standard pressure conditions. (Id.) UL commented that C417 specifies a pressure of 30 inches of mercury at a temperature of 32 °F, which UL converted according to NIST conversion factors into 101,591.4 Pascals or 407.852 inches of water (using the ‘‘conventional liquid’’ conversion factor). (UL, No. 17 at pp. 2– 3) UL recommended that the value for Pbase be updated to match the value E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations derived using C417 and that the pressure be specified in units that do not involve the height of a fluid to avoid confusion. (UL, No. 17 at p. 3) In response to UL’s comment that the accuracy of the barometric pressure reading is not specified in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE notes that the 2021 Round Robin produced repeatable test results even though the barometric pressure reading accuracy was not specified. DOE has determined that the laboratories that conducted the 2021 Round Robin used barometric pressure measuring devices with accuracies ranging from 0.1 to 4 millibars. DOE has observed that typical accuracies for barometric pressure reading devices currently on the market are less than 8 millibars. In this final rule, DOE is not specifying an accuracy for the barometric pressure reading in appendix I1, noting that it is unlikely that an instrument used by a test laboratory to measure barometric pressure would produce significantly more variability than was observed in the 2021 Round Robin. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposed gas pressure and temperature specifications for gas cooking tops. In response to UL’s comments regarding the gas correction factor formula, DOE is updating the units of measurement specified in the formula for the correction factor to standard temperature and pressure conditions used in section 4.1.1.2.1 of new appendix I1 to be more representative of the units of measurement used by test laboratories. These changes do not affect any of the resulting calculations. Specifically, DOE notes that C417 specifies a Pbase value of 30 inches of mercury at a temperature of 32 °F, which is equal to 101,591.4 Pascals,58 or 14.73 pounds per square inch (‘‘psi’’).59 In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed pressure values in the correction factor formula in inches of water column, which is the unit of measurement most commonly used by industry for measuring gas line pressure. By contrast, in DOE’s experience, to measure barometric pressure, psi is a more commonly used unit. In this final rule, DOE updates the specified units for Pbase and Patm used in the correction factor formula in section 4.1.1.2.1 of appendix I1 to be recorded in psi, and maintains gas line pressure to be measured in inches of water 58 30 inches of mercury at 32 °F x 3,386.38 Pascals per inch of mercury (conversion factor defined by NIST) = 101,591.4 Pascals. 59 101,591.4 Pascals ÷ 6,894.757 Pascals per pound per square inch (conversion factor defined by NIST) = 14.73 pounds per square inch. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 column, as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. DOE is also including a corresponding conversion factor of 0.0361 60 in appendix I1 to convert Pgas from inches of water column to psi. DOE is also updating the units for gas temperature used in the correction factor formula to be measured in °F or °C, rather than degrees Rankine or Kelvin. To accommodate this change, DOE is including an adder, Tk, to the correction factor formula for converting the gas temperature from °F to Rankine or °C to Kelvin, as applicable. In summary, DOE believes these changes to the units of measurement better align with the units of measurement most commonly used by test laboratories. c. Gas Calorimeter The version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule required that the heating value be measured with an unspecified instrument with a maximum error of 0.5 percent of the measured value and a resolution of 0.2 percent of the full-scale reading. The heating value was then required to be corrected to standard temperature and pressure. 81 FR 91418, 91440. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require the use of a standard continuous flow calorimeter to measure the higher heating value of the gas. DOE proposed four requirements: an operating range of 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic foot, a maximum error no greater than 0.2 percent of the actual heating value of the gas used in the test, an indicator readout maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the measured value within the operating range, and a resolution of 0.2 percent of the full-scale reading of the indicator instrument. 86 FR 60974, 60987. These requirements are consistent with the calorimeter requirements from the test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2, for gas clothes dryers. As discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed a different approach for determining the heating value because, after discussions with test laboratories and manufacturers, applying the gas correction factor to the heating value does not reflect common practice in the industry. 86 FR 60974, 60987. Instead, DOE proposed to calculate gas energy use as the product of three factors: the measured gas volume consumed (in cubic feet), a correction factor converting measured 60 DOE notes that the conversion from inches of water column to psi, as defined by NIST, is equal to 0.0361, regardless of the temperature of the water defined in the inches of water column unit. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51513 cubic feet of gas to standard cubic feet of gas as discussed previously, and the heating value of the gas (in Btu per standard cubic foot) in new appendix I1. Id. DOE proposed to specify further that the heating value would be the higher heating value on a dry-basis of gas. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it is DOE’s understanding that this is the typical heating value used by the industry and third-party test laboratories. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposed instrumentation specifications for gas cooking tops, including the gas calorimeter, and any cost burden for manufacturers who may not already have the required instrumentation. Id. AHAM commented that it does not oppose DOE’s proposal to require the use of a standard continuous flow calorimeter for gas cooking top testing, stating that these devices are standard laboratory equipment. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12) UL commented that the requirements for standard continuous flow calorimeter accuracy separating the meter accuracy (error) from the readout (error) seem to be based on older Cutler Hammer calorimeters and are not applicable to modern equipment or other techniques such as a gas chromatograph or bottled gases. (UL, No. 17 at p. 1) UL commented that it recommends that the regulation combines the meter accuracy with the readout accuracy to have an accuracy requirement for the measurement of heat content. (Id.) UL further commented that the specification for operating range given in section 2.7.2.2 of proposed appendix I1 also seems to be based on older Cutler Hammer calorimeters and stated that, in general, operating ranges are not required for other instruments such as flow meters, volt meters, ammeters, etc. (UL, No. 17 at p. 2) UL recommended that section 2.7.2.2 of appendix I1 eliminate the requirement for an operating range, claiming that specifying a broad range tends to reduce accuracy. (Id.) In response to UL’s comment regarding the gas meter accuracy, DOE notes that these requirements would not apply if a test laboratory were to use bottled gas to conduct the cooking top test procedure. Modifying the accuracy requirements as suggested by UL could prevent some older testing equipment from being able to be used to perform the DOE test procedure, thus requiring laboratories that use such equipment to purchase newer equipment. DOE has no indications to suggest that such older equipment is any less accurate or any less appropriate for use in the DOE test E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51514 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations procedure. Thus, requiring the purchase of newer equipment would represent undue test burden. DOE further notes that the requirements as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR do not preclude the use of more modern equipment. In this final rule, DOE finalizes the requirements for the accuracy of the standard continuous flow calorimeter as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. In response to UL’s comment stating that specifying a broad operating range tends to reduce accuracy, DOE notes that the equipment used for testing must meet the accuracy specifications defined by the test procedure, regardless of whether a broad or narrow operating range is specified (i.e., in combination with specifying an accuracy range, the specification of a broad operating range has no impact on the accuracy of the measured value). DOE recognizes, however, that specifying a particular operating range could prevent certain equipment from being used that may have a different specified operating range but provides an equivalent level of accuracy for the values being measured for the DOE test procedure. As such, specifying an accuracy range could increase test burden (by requiring the purchase of new equipment) without providing any benefit in the form of improved accuracy. For this reason, DOE determines that specifying an operating range for the gas calorimeter could introduce undue test burden. In this final rule, DOE specifies the required accuracy of the standard continuous flow calorimeter without specifying an allowable operating range. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposed instrumentation specifications for gas calorimeters for gas cooking tops, with the elimination of the 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic foot operating range requirement proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. 3. Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops In applying the test method in IEC 60350–2:2021 to gas cooking tops, DOE must define test vessels that are appropriate for each type of burner. The test vessels specified in Section 5.6.1 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350– 2:2021 are constructed from a 1-mm thick stainless steel sidewall welded to a 5-mm thick circular stainless steel base, with additional heat-resistant sealant applied. The EN 30–2–1 test method, which is designed for use with gas cooking tops, specifies test vessels that differ in dimensions, material, and construction from those in IEC 60350–2. Further, Table 1 of EN 30–2–1 defines the test vessel selection based on the nominal heat input rate (specified in kilowatts (‘‘kW’’) of each burner under test, as shown in Table III.1). These test vessels are fabricated from a single piece of aluminum, with a wall thickness between 1.5 and 1.8 mm. TABLE III.1—TEST VESSEL SELECTION FOR GAS COOKING TOPS IN EN 30–2–1 Test vessel diameter (mm) Nominal heat input range (kW) between 1.16 and 1.64 inclusive ................................................ between 1.65 and 1.98 inclusive ................................................ between 1.99 and 2.36 inclusive ................................................ between 2.37 and 4.2 inclusive .................................................. greater than 4.2 .......................................................................... Notes 220 * 240 * 260 * 260 * 300 Adjust the heat input rate of the burner to 2.36 kW ±2%. Adjust the heat input rate of the burner to 4.2 kW ±2%. * If the indicated diameter is greater than the maximum diameter given in the instructions, conduct the test using the next lower diameter and adjust the heat input rate to the highest heat input of the allowable range for that test vessel size, ±2%. Because they are not made of a ferromagnetic material (such as stainless steel), the EN 30–2–1 test vessels could not be used for electric-smooth induction cooking tops. To use a consistent set of test vessels for all types of gas and electric cooking tops, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to specify in new appendix I1 the IEC 60350–2:2017 test vessel to be used for each gas burner,61 based on heat input rate ranges equivalent to those in Table 1 of EN 30–2–1, although expressed in Btu per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’). 86 FR 60974, 60988. The test vessel diameters in EN 30–2–1 do not exactly match those of the test vessels in IEC 60350–2, but DOE selected the closest match possible, as shown in Table III.2. DOE also proposed to adjust the lower limit of one of the burner heat input rate ranges corresponding to the EN 260 mm test vessel (1.99–2.36 kW, equivalent to 6,800–8,050 Btu/h) and to allocate some of its range to the IEC 240 mm vessel for two reasons. First, it would provide more evenly balanced ranges. Second, it would avoid a significant mismatch between the heat input rate and test vessel sizes at the lower end of the heat input range. Id. DOE did not propose to include the notes included in EN 30–2– 1, which require burners with nominal heat input rates greater than 8,050 Btu/ h to be tested at heat input rates lower than their maximum rated value. DOE preliminarily determined these would not be representative of consumer use of such burners. Id. TABLE III.2—TEST VESSEL SELECTION FOR GAS COOKING TOPS PROPOSED IN THE NOVEMBER 2021 NOPR Nominal gas burner input rate (Btu/h) jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Minimum (>) Maximum (≤) ..................................................................................................................... 5,600 ................................................................................................................ 8,050 ................................................................................................................ 61 As described previously, both IEC 60350– 2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specify test vessels in VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 5,600 8,050 14,300 the following diameters: 120 mmm 150 mm, 180 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 EN 30–2–1 Test vessel diameter (mm) 220 240 and 260 260 IEC 60350–2 Test vesel diameter (mm) 210 240 270 Water load mass (g) 2,050 2,700 3,420 mm, 210 mm, 240 mm, 270 mm, 300 mm, and 330 mm. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 51515 TABLE III.2—TEST VESSEL SELECTION FOR GAS COOKING TOPS PROPOSED IN THE NOVEMBER 2021 NOPR—Continued jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Nominal gas burner input rate (Btu/h) Minimum (>) Maximum (≤) 14,300 .............................................................................................................. ........................ Similar to electric cooking tops, DOE also proposed in new appendix I1 that if a selected test vessel cannot be centered on the cooking zone due to interference with a structural component of the cooking top, the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be centered on the cooking zone be used.62 Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to require the use of IEC test vessels for gas cooking tops and on its proposed method for selecting the test vessel size to use based on the gas burner’s heat input rate. Id. The Joint Commenters agreed with the proposed test vessels and test vessel selection method for gas cooking tops. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters supported aligning the test methods for gas and electric cooking tops to the extent possible. (Id.) The Joint Commenters stated that using a consistent set of test vessels across all cooking tops can provide more accurate comparisons between cooking top models across different product types. (Id.) Samsung supported the use of the same test vessels for both electric and gas cooking tops, stating that minimizing the variety of test vessels required reduces testing burden. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 2) The CA IOUs requested that DOE amend the gas and/or electric cooking top test vessel and water load selection criteria to mitigate what they claimed were discrepancies in comparability between cooking tops with different fuel types. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that, while IEC 60350–2 and EN 30–2–1 are both reliable test procedure sources for their respective cooking top fuels, the use of two different sources for developing the test vessel and water load selection criteria may result in significant differences that limit performance comparisons between electric and gas cooking tops. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that IEC 60350–2 and EN 62 See section III.E.1 of this document for a discussion of the clarifying edits to this provision for electric cooking tops, which is extended to gas cooking tops, requiring that if a test vessel lid cannot be centered on the test vessel due to interference from a structural component, the substitution also occurs. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:04 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 30–2–1 were not developed to be directly comparable to one another, and stated that as such, DOE should make amendments to ensure comparability. (Id.) The CA IOUs recommended that to create a more comparable test procedure, the electric and gas cooking tops should have the same granularity of test vessel and water load selection criteria. (Id.) They stated that the gas cooking top test vessel selection table includes only half of the eight test vessels in the electric cooking top test vessel selection table. (Id.) According to the CA IOUs, the relationship between input power and water load is not equivalent between cooking top fuel types because of the difference in granularity between electric and gas cooking top test vessel selection criteria in the November 2021 NOPR. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that they have developed a crosswalk between the test vessel selection criteria for electric cooking tops based on cooking zone diameter, and for gas cooking tops based on evaluating the nominal burner input rating, using the cooking zone diameters and associated power ratings of a representative electric range. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 3) The CA IOUs asserted that the resulting analysis shows the inconsistent test vessel and water load granularity between electric and gas. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that by their calculation, the narrowest range defined for a gas cooking top test vessel (5,600 to 8,050 Btu/h, for use with the 240 mm test vessel) corresponds to three different vessel sizes for electric cooking tops within that equivalent range. (Id.) The CA IOUs further stated that the rate of change in water load to input power ratios is inconsistent between electric and gas cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that it is understandable that an electric heating element and gas burner designed for the same consumer purpose (e.g., primary large or secondary simmering cooking zone) have different power ratings. (Id.) They stated that, according to a 2019 study conducted by Frontier Energy, they transfer heat to the pan or pot at different efficiencies dictated by their PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 EN 30–2–1 Test vessel diameter (mm) 300 IEC 60350–2 Test vesel diameter (mm) 300 Water load mass (g) 4,240 fuel type.63 (Id.) The CA IOUs asserted that once that inherent difference has been established, the rate of change to the next test vessel selection should be consistent for both electric and gas cooking tops with the change in water load. (Id.) However, they noted that as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR, when moving from the 2,700 g water load to the 3,420 g water load, the electric heating element power increases by 13 percent, while the gas burner power increases by 64 percent. (Id.) The CA IOUs claimed that the inconsistencies in the test vessel selection criteria create a test procedure that does not allow for an accurate comparison between gas and electric product performance and thus limits a consumer’s ability to accurately compare products. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 5) The CA IOUs requested that DOE align the gas cooking top test vessel and water load selection criteria with the electric cooking top criteria more closely by specifying an equal number of test vessel and water load increments for gas and electric cooking tops. (Id.) The CA IOUs also requested that DOE amend the gas and/or electric cooking top test vessel and water load selection criteria rate of changes to more closely align with one another. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE has not conducted testing to understand the wear and degradation effects from gas units on the IEC cookware, stating that the long-term durability of stainless pots for gas testing is unknown. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 13) AHAM commented that it is conducting investigative testing to assess the difference in results between IEC and EN test vessels. (Id.) AHAM stated that DOE should wait for its test results before proceeding and should include its results in a supplemental 63 As described in a 2019 study by Frontier Energy, gas cooking tops ‘‘have the highest thermal losses because the gas flame heats up the air around the pot or pan, which in turn heats up the kitchen’’ while electric cooking tops, either ‘‘heat up the pot or pan directly and not the surrounding air’’, as is the case with induction cooking, or ‘‘heat the air indirectly’’ due to heating of the cooking top itself such as with electric resistance cooking tops. Residential Cooktop Performance and Energy Comparison Study by Frontier Energy. July 2019. cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/ Induction-Range-Final-Report-July-2019.pdf. Last accessed March 31, 2022. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51516 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations NOPR (‘‘SNOPR’’) or NODA as needed. (Id.) AHAM commented that it acknowledges the potential to reduce burden associated with using the same pots but stated that the impact of doing so on test results needs to be studied. (Id.) In response to the CA IOUs’ comments regarding the differences in granularity of the defined heat input ranges corresponding to each test vessel size for gas and electric cooking tops, DOE notes that gas and electric cooking tops are not directly comparable in terms of the variety of element and burner sizes generally offered on individual models. On a single unit, electric cooking tops generally offer a greater range of heating element sizes and maximum input rates among the different heating elements than gas cooking tops offer in terms of burner input rates. As discussed in section III.E.1 of this document, gas burners are able to be effectively used with a much wider range of pot sizes than electric heating elements. An electric heating element can only provide effective heat transfer to the area of a pot in direct contact or in line of sight with the element, such that the range of pot diameters that can be effectively used on an electric heating element is limited by the diameter of the heating element. Conversely, gas burners are able to provide effective heat transfer to a wider range of pot sizes (and in particular, pots with a diameter larger than the burner). Thus, the range of pot diameters that can be effectively used on a gas burner is not limited by the diameter of the burner to the same extent that it is for an electric heating element. For these reasons, DOE has determined that it is appropriate that the test procedure specify smaller test vessel increments (i.e., more granularity) for electric cooking tops than for gas cooking tops. Furthermore, DOE is unaware of any existing electric cooking tops with heating element diameters smaller than 130 mm (5.1 inches) or larger than 310 mm (12.2 inches), which would use the 120 mm and 330 mm test vessels, respectively. Therefore, effectively only six test vessel sizes (as opposed to eight included for consideration) are used for electric cooking tops as compared to the four test vessel sizes used for gas cooking tops. In response to AHAM’s comment on the use of the IEC test vessels for gas cooking top testing, DOE has determined that there is no evidence to suggest that consumers use different cookware for gas and electric cooking tops. Therefore, DOE proposed to use VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 the same cookware for testing gas cooking tops as is used for electric cooking tops. DOE selected the IEC test vessels because they are compatible with all cooking technologies, unlike the EN test vessels.64 As discussed, DOE has conducted a rigorous round robin testing program over multiple months using the IEC test vessels on both gas and electric cooking tops, and DOE has not encountered any problems with their use during this testing. Further, DOE observed no discernable difference in the condition of the test vessels after electric or gas cooking top testing. See section III.H.3 of this document for further discussion regarding test vessel flatness. DOE has not yet received any data from AHAM on this issue and encourages AHAM to send any data when it becomes available. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal in the November 2021 NOPR to require the use of IEC test vessels for gas cooking tops, and its proposed method for selecting the test vessel size based on the gas burner’s heat input rate. 4. Burner Heat Input Rate Adjustment In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE recognized that the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule did not include requirements related to gas outlet pressure, in particular a tolerance on the regulator outlet pressure or specifications for the nominal heat input rate for burners on gas cooking tops. 86 FR 60974, 60988. From a review of the test results from the 2020 Round Robin, DOE tentatively concluded in the November 2021 NOPR that the lack of such provisions was likely a significant contributor to the greater reproducibility COV values observed for gas cooking tops in relation to those for electric cooking tops. Id. To improve test procedure reproducibility, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to incorporate gas supply pressure and regulator outlet pressure (which affects heat input rate) requirements into new appendix I1, as described further in the following discussion. Id. Industry procedures for gas cooking tops include specifications for the heat input rate. For example, EN 30–2–1 specifies that before testing, each burner is adjusted to within 2 percent of its nominal heat input rate. Section 5.3.5 of the American National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) Standard Z21.1– 2016, ‘‘Household cooking gas appliances’’ (‘‘ANSI Z21.1’’) has a two64 Because the EN cookware are made of aluminum, they would not be usable on electric cooking tops using induction heating technologies. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 step heat input rate requirement. First, individual burners must be adjusted to their Btu rating at normal inlet test pressure. Next, the heat input rate of the burners must be measured after 5 minutes of operation, at which time it must be within ± 5 percent of the nameplate value. Based on a review of its test data, DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that specifying a tolerance of ± 5 percent from the nominal heat input rate may not produce repeatable and reproducible test results. Id. at 86 FR 60989. Therefore, DOE proposed to specify in new appendix I1 that the measured heat input rate be within 2 percent the nominal heat input rate as specified by the manufacturer. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the heat input rate be measured and adjusted for each burner of the cooking top before conducting testing on that burner. Id. The measurement would be taken at the maximum heat input rate, with the properly sized test vessel and water load centered above the burner to be measured, starting 5 minutes after ignition. Id. If the measured average heat input rate of the burner is within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer, no adjustment of the heat input rate would be made for any testing of that burner. Id. DOE also proposed to require adjusting the average heat input rate if the measured average heat input rate of the burner is not within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer. Id. For gas cooking tops with an adjustable internal pressure regulator, the pressure regulator would be adjusted such that the average heat input rate of the burner under test is within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer. Id. For gas cooking tops with a non-adjustable internal pressure regulator or without an internal pressure regulator, the regulator would be removed or blocked in the open position, and the gas pressure ahead of all controls would be maintained at the nominal manifold pressure specified by the manufacturer. Id. These proposed instructions are in accordance with provisions for burner adjustment in Section 5.3.3 of ANSI Z21.1. The gas supply pressure would then be adjusted until the average heat input rate of the burner under test is within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer. Id. In either case, the burner would be adjusted such that the air flow is sufficient to prevent a yellow flame or flame with yellow tips. Id. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations Once the heat input rate has been set for a burner, it would not be adjusted during testing of that burner. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal for adjusting the burner heat input rate to the nominal heat input rate as specified by the manufacturer, and to include a 2-percent tolerance on the heat input rate of each burner on a gas cooking top. Id. Below are summaries of comments received. NYSERDA agreed with including gas supply pressure and regulatory outlet pressure requirements to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters supported the proposal for adjusting the burner heat input rate for gas cooking tops, the inclusion of specifications for the heat input rate, and the 2-percent tolerance on the heat input rate to ensure reproducibility of test results. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 3) NEEA supported the proposed methodology for input rate verification and the proposed 2-percent tolerance on input rate, stating that these proposals align with the methodology of ASTM food service standards and should be rigorous enough to ensure repeatable testing. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2) The CA IOUs supported the proposed input rate and incoming gas pressure specifications to ensure that units tested at different laboratories are tested under comparable conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) AHAM commented that the thirdparty test laboratory it used for its testing had problems controlling gas pressure and flow, especially on smaller burners rated at 5,000 to 6,000 Btu/h. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 11) AHAM stated that depending on unit construction, damage could occur from blocking open a built-in gas regulator, internal to the unit, to achieve the required gas tolerance. (Id.) AHAM also stated this could generate inaccurate results. (Id.) AHAM asserted that the proposed tolerance of the average heat input rate of the burner under test being within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner is too small. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 13) AHAM stated that it is conducting investigative testing using both a 2-percent and 5-percent tolerance, and that DOE should wait for the results rather than using a calculated assessment of how results change based on burner adjustment. (Id.) AHAM recommended that DOE use the 5percent tolerance if it decides to move forward without test data to support its proposal, stating that a 5-percent tolerance is used in well-established industry standards. (Id.) AHAM claimed that DOE’s data do not demonstrate that VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 variation in the test itself has been reduced. (Id.) AHAM stated that other factors, such as improved test technician understanding of the test, likely contributed to the reduction in variation. (Id.) Additionally, AHAM commented that the tighter tolerance on burner heat input rate adds undue burden. AHAM further stated that changing barometric pressure conditions must be considered within a wider tolerance. (Id.) AHAM commented that the smaller tolerance window is more problematic for smaller burners (5,000–6,000 Btu/h) than for higher-input-rate burners. (Id.) UL commented that the procedure for gas burner adjustment defines only when to start measuring heat input and not for how long. (UL, No. 17 at p. 2) UL stated that the duration of the input rate measurement should be defined since heat input decreases over time. (Id.) UL asserted, for example, that if one laboratory measures heat input for 10 seconds and another measures it over a time period of 2 minutes, the numbers will be different because the heat input is changing while it is being measured. (Id.) UL suggested that some laboratories may object to a specific time period and stated that a range may be a good compromise to accommodate different measurement methods. (Id.) According to UL, some laboratories may rely on a stopwatch to measure the time of a specified number of rotations of the needle on a wet drum meter, and that the amount of time for those rotations depends on the size of the meter and the rating for the burner. (Id.) UL commented that other laboratories may have equipment to measure instantaneous heat input, in which case a time for measurement can align with alternative methods. (Id.) DOE has not yet received any data from AHAM on this issue and encourages AHAM to send any data when it becomes available. AHAM’s concern regarding the potential damage to the unit from blocking a built-in regulator in the open position to achieve the required burner heat input rate is not supported by DOE’s testing experience. When blocking a gas regulator in the open position, to obtain the required heat input, the test laboratory would use the laboratory regulator on the gas supply line, upstream of the unit, to control the gas supply pressure. This external regulation would reduce the pressure and mitigate any gas flow fluctuations from the supply line that could cause potential damage. DOE also notes that this approach leads to more repeatable and reproducible results. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51517 DOE’s 2021 Round Robin test data shows improved repeatability and reproducibility in comparison to the 2020 Round Robin. Specifying a 2percent tolerance on the burner heat input rate was one of the key differences between the two test programs. All of the data DOE has presented for both the 2020 Round Robin and the 2021 Round Robin was collected by experienced technicians and validated for compliance with the appropriate test method. DOE notes that none of the three test laboratories that participated in gas testing for the 2021 Round Robin reported any difficulty in meeting the 2percent specification even on smaller burners. DOE reiterates that the proposed 2percent tolerance mirrors the tolerance specified in the EN 30–2–1 industry test procedure. DOE further notes that it did not propose any provisions that would require changing barometric conditions. Furthermore, DOE notes that AHAM’s request for a 5-percent tolerance on the nominal burner heat input rate would seemingly contradict AHAM’s comment that DOE’s efforts to reduce variation have not reduced variation enough for certain parts of the test procedure (see section III.C of this document). DOE disagrees with UL’s suggestion to define the duration over which the burner heat input rate should be measured. As suggested by UL, the appropriate length of time over which the burner heat input rate should be measured is based on the type of meter being used and test laboratory best practices will depend on the type of meter being used. DOE testing suggests that the rate of change of the burner heat input rate within a few minutes after 5 minutes of operation is small enough that the average burner heat input rate measurement would not vary significantly for different measurement periods within that time frame. DOE expects that laboratories complete this measurement within a few minutes after the end of the 5-minute operating period, regardless of the type of meter being used. Therefore, DOE is not specifying a period of time over which the average burner heat input rate must be measured. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposal for adjusting the burner heat input rate to the nominal heat input rate as specified by the manufacturer, and to include a 2percent tolerance on the heat input rate of each burner on a gas cooking top. For clarity, DOE is removing the word ‘‘average’’ from section 3.1.3 of appendix I1 to avoid implying that the measurement must be made over a E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51518 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations specific length of time and, in particular, to accommodate the option to measure instantaneous burner heat input rate after the specified 5 minutes of operation. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 5. Target Power Density for Optional Potential Simmering Setting PreSelection Test As discussed in section III.D.2.d of this document, Annex H of IEC 60350– 2:2021 specifies a target power density of 0.8 W/cm2 for the potential simmering setting pre-selection test for electric cooking tops. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed for gas cooking tops to specify a separate target power density, which would be measured in Btu per hour divided by the area of the cookware bottom in square centimeters (‘‘Btu/h·cm2’’). 86 FR 60974, 60989. To evaluate possible values for this target power density, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE investigated test data from five gas cooking tops, each tested three times as part of the 2020 Round Robin,65 at a single test laboratory. Id. The range of power densities measured for test cycles of minimum-abovethreshold settings was 3.8–11.6 Btu/ h·cm2. Id. at 86 FR 60990. The range of power densities measured for test cycles of maximum-below-threshold settings was 2.6–5.9 Btu/h·cm2. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE preliminarily estimated that a target power density of 4.0 Btu/h·cm2 would be appropriate. Id. DOE noted that it could consider specifying a different target power density for the potential simmering setting pre-selection test if additional data were to suggest that a different value would be more representative than the proposed value of 4.0 Btu/h·cm2. Id. In the December 2021 NODA, DOE presented data from the 2021 Round Robin. The additional data DOE collected were on the measured power density of the minimum-abovethreshold input setting and the maximum-below-threshold input setting for four gas cooking tops.66 86 FR 71406, 65 This test data was not measured according to the test procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. DOE preliminarily determined that it was still useful to evaluate potential target power densities because a cooking top setting’s power density is inherent and does not vary with test procedure protocol. However, due to the lack of burner heat input rate tolerance in the testing, some of these tested values may not accurately reflect the expected power densities when the heat input rate is within 2 percent of the nominal value. 66 The test data are available in the docket for this rulemaking at: www.regulations.gov/document/ EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004. Unlike the data presented in the November 2021 NOPR, these test data were measured according to the test procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. However, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 71408. The range of power densities measured for test cycles of minimumabove-threshold settings was 3.2–9.5 Btu/h·cm2. The range of power densities measured for test cycles of maximumbelow-threshold settings was 2.5–6.4 Btu/h·cm2. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposed target power density for gas cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/h·cm2. 86 FR 60974, 60990. DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed target power density for gas cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/ h·cm2. DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed target power density for the optional potential simmering setting preselection test for gas cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/h·cm2. 6. Product Temperature Measurement for Gas Cooking Tops As discussed in section III.E.2.b of this document, DOE is specifying in new appendix I1 that the temperature of the product must be measured at the center of the cooking zone under test before any active mode testing. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that this requirement would also apply to gas burner adjustments described in section 3.1.3 of new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60990. DOE further proposed to specify that for a conventional gas cooking top, the product temperature would be measured inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap. Id. Before the standby mode and off mode power test, the product temperature would be measured as the average of the temperature measured at the center of each cooking zone. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to require measuring a gas cooking top’s temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap. Id. AHAM objected to DOE’s proposal to require measuring the product temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 13) AHAM gave several reasons: DOE had not presented data to show that burner cap removal is necessary, and this requirement would be impractical, invasive, unnecessary, and not in accordance with common practices for testing gas cooking appliances. AHAM commented that DOE believes the two data sets present comparable data. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 burners have an increased risk of damage if they are tampered with and stated that burner disassembly compromises proper and safe performance and is not appropriate for gas products. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 13– 14) AHAM urged DOE not to require any appliance disassembly in the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE clarify where to measure the product temperature for products without burner caps. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) In response to AHAM’s concern regarding the removal of the gas burner cap to measure the product temperature of a gas cooking top, DOE notes that to its knowledge and through its testing experience, removing the burner cap is generally not difficult and does not risk damage to the unit. A test laboratory that participated in the 2021 Round Robin confirmed with DOE that the removal of the gas burner cap is not a complicated or time-consuming requirement. DOE further notes that removing the gas burner cap is a common practice among consumers as part of the regular cleaning process for gas cooking tops, and instructions for doing so are typically included in manufacturer instructions. DOE considered not requiring the removal of the gas burner cap to measure the product temperature but has determined that the method proposed in the November 2021 NOPR is the approach that best confirms whether a cooking top’s internal components have returned to ambient conditions. This confirmation is especially important for gas cooking tops because the temperature of the internal components can affect critical dimensions, and thus the amount of gas flow and entrained air. If the cooking top is not properly tested starting at ambient temperature, this factor could lead to unrepeatable results. DOE notes that throughout both the 2020 Round Robin and the 2021 Round Robin, three test laboratories followed the requirement to measure the product temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap without issue. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to require measuring a gas cooking top’s temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap. In response to the comment from the CA IOUs, DOE clarifies that the burner cap need only be removed if one exists. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations G. Definitions and Clarifications As part of this final rule, DOE is adding certain definitions and clarifications to new appendix I1 in addition to those already described. 1. Operating Modes To clarify provisions relating to the various operating modes, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add definitions of ‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘off mode,’’ ‘‘standby mode,’’ ‘‘inactive mode,’’ and ‘‘combined low-power mode’’ to new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60990. These definitions are identical to those that had been established in the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule. DOE proposed to define active mode as ‘‘a mode in which the product is connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and is performing the main function of producing heat by means of a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating.’’ Id. DOE proposed to define off mode as ‘‘any mode in which a product is connected to a mains power source and is not providing any active mode or standby function, and where the mode may persist for an indefinite time. An indicator that only shows the user that the product is in the off position is included within the classification of an off mode.’’ Id. DOE proposed to define standby mode as ‘‘any mode in which a product is connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of the following user-oriented or protective functions which may persist for an indefinite time: jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 (1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer; (2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a display) that allows for regularly scheduled tasks and that operates on a continuous basis.’’ Id. at 86 FR 60990–60991. DOE proposed to define inactive mode as ‘‘a standby mode that facilitates the activation of active mode by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous status display.’’ Id. at 86 FR 60991. DOE proposed to define combined low-power mode as ‘‘the aggregate of available modes other than active mode, but including the delay start mode portion of active mode.’’ Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of ‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘off mode,’’ ‘‘standby mode,’’ ‘‘inactive mode,’’ and ‘‘combined low-power mode.’’ Id. The CA IOUs commented that DOE’s proposal to define both ‘‘standby’’ and ‘‘inactive’’ mode may cause confusion. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 5) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE remove references to ‘‘inactive’’ mode from the test procedure and stated that the standby mode definition would then be used in lowpower mode calculations. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that it is their understanding that when DOE originally defined inactive mode as a subset of standby mode in the final rule pertaining to test procedures for clothes dryers and room air conditioners, published on January 6, 2011, it did not intend for the terms ‘‘inactive’’ and ‘‘standby’’ to be defined as separate modes for a single product, as has been done in the November 2021 NOPR. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 6) The CA IOUs commented that it is their understanding that the inactive mode was intended to be referenced partly in lieu of standby mode, when the statutory standby definition in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 67 (‘‘EISA 2007’’) did not apply. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 5–6) The CA IOUs recommended that the references to inactive mode be removed from the rulemaking unless DOE has identified a strong rationale for using a standby definition other than that provided by Congress. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 5–6) In response to the CA IOUs’ concern that DOE’s proposal to define both ‘‘standby’’ and ‘‘inactive’’ mode may cause confusion, DOE notes that inactive mode was defined in the November 2021 NOPR as a subset of standby mode. It was in section 1.14 of the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, on which the definitions used in the November 2021 NOPR were based. 86 FR 60974, 60991. EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, requires DOE to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption in any energy consumption metric, if technically feasible. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Inactive mode is the subset of standby mode measured as part of the energy consumption metric. DOE further notes that this terminology is consistent with other products such as clothes dryers, room air conditioners, and dishwashers. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices D2, F, and C1. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 67 Public PO 00000 Law 110–140 (enacted Dec. 19, 2007). Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51519 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of ‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘off mode,’’ ‘‘standby mode,’’ ‘‘inactive mode,’’ and ‘‘combined low-power mode.’’ 2. Product Configuration and Installation Requirements For additional clarity, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add definitions of ‘‘combined cooking product,’’ ‘‘freestanding,’’ ‘‘built-in,’’ and ‘‘drop-in’’ to new appendix I1 that were included in the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, and installation instructions for each of these configurations. 86 FR 60974, 60991. DOE proposed to define combined cooking product as ‘‘a household cooking appliance that combines a cooking product with other appliance functionality, which may or may not include another cooking product. Combined cooking products include the following products: conventional range, microwave/conventional cooking top, microwave/conventional oven, and microwave/conventional range.’’ Id. DOE proposed to specify that a conventional cooking top or combined cooking product be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Id. If the manufacturer’s instructions specify that the product may be used in multiple installation conditions, the product would be installed according to the built-in configuration. Id. DOE proposed to require complete assembly of the product with all handles, knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place, and that any electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Id. DOE proposed that if the product can communicate through a network (e.g., Bluetooth® or internet connection), the network function be disabled, if it is possible to disable it by means provided in the manufacturer’s user manual, for the duration of testing. Id. If the network function cannot be disabled, or if means for disabling the function are not provided in the manufacturer’s user manual, the product would be tested in the factory default setting or in the asshipped condition. Id. These proposals are consistent with comparable provisions in final rule that DOE published for its microwave oven test procedure on March 30, 2022. 87 FR 18261, 18268. DOE proposed to define ‘‘freestanding’’ as applying when ‘‘the product is supported by the floor and is not specified in the manufacturer’s instructions as able to be installed such that it is enclosed by surrounding E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51520 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures.’’ 86 FR 60974, 60991. DOE proposed that a freestanding combined cooking product be installed with the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical wall which extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond both sides of the product, and with no side walls. Id. DOE proposed to define ‘‘built-in’’ as applying when ‘‘the product is enclosed in surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures on at least three sides, and can be supported by surrounding cabinetry or the floor.’’ Id. DOE proposed to define ‘‘drop-in’’ as applying when ‘‘the product is supported by horizontal surface cabinetry.’’ Id. DOE proposed that a drop-in or built-in combined cooking product be installed in a test enclosure in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. Id. DOE proposed that a conventional cooking top be installed with the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical wall which extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond both sides of the product. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of product configurations and installation requirements. Id. AHAM agreed with the proposed definitions for product configuration and installation requirements, stating that they align with existing industry standards. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14) AHAM commented that it is its understanding that DOE’s proposal does not require additional installation requirements such as aesthetic or safety components (e.g., anti-tipping brackets) that do not affect energy test performance, and stated that if this is not DOE’s intent, then DOE should clarify its proposal and provide justification about why aesthetic or safety components should be installed, despite the added burden to install. (Id.) NYSERDA urged DOE to amend the proposed procedure to account for network-connected energy usage during testing by requiring products be tested in the ‘‘as-shipped’’ condition to best represent typical use conditions. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2) According to NYSERDA, testing the product in the asshipped condition is the best way to garner test results that are representative of real-world conditions, stating that it is unlikely the average consumer will read the manufacturer’s instructions and disable network connectivity. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that DOE provides no information indicating that consumers will disable network functionality if they have a cooking top with this feature. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 6) The CA IOUs asserted that testing the product in the ‘‘as-shipped’’ condition would be most representative of realworld conditions. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that in the context of various DOE rulemakings, including the recently published microwave oven test procedure SNOPR, the CA IOUs have consistently commented that leaving networking functions in their asshipped condition is most representative of real-world energy use in the absence of data indicating how consumers use connected functionality on the product under consideration. (Id.) The CA IOUs claimed, in particular, that given the limited user interface of many cooking products, granular control of networking capability (including on/off functionality) is seldom offered. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that even if granular control of networking capability was offered, consumers would likely be unaware of the option to adjust such functions, or unable to determine how to do so. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that they are fully supportive of innovation that enhances consumer utility but stated that this innovation ideally does not come at the expense of efficiency. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that they understand the potential benefits of networked cooking products but stated that the implementation must be optimized properly. (Id.) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE’s instruction to turn off networking as proposed in the test procedure provides an incentive for manufacturers to add a method for disabling connected functionality as cheaply as possible in a manner that may not be reasonably accessible to a consumer. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 6– 7) The CA IOUs commented that this leaves consumers who do not take the active steps to disable their network functionality with unregulated energy consuming operations. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs commented that if DOE moves forward with its proposal to test with network functionality turned off when possible, DOE should provide market data illustrating that consumers do indeed take the active step to disable networking functionality. (Id.) In response to AHAM’s comment regarding installation requirements, DOE proposed to require complete assembly of the product with all handles, knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place, and that any electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. To the extent that an PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 aesthetic or safety component does not correspond to any of these requirements, it would not be required to be installed. DOE is aware of a number of cooking tops on the market with varying implementations of connected functionality. On such products, DOE has observed inconsistent implementations of these connected features across different brands, and that the design and operation of these features is continuously evolving as the market continues to grow for these products. DOE remains unaware of any data available, nor did interested parties provide any such data, regarding the consumer use of connected features. Without such data, DOE is unable to establish a representative test configuration for assessing the energy consumption of connected functionality for conventional cooking tops during an average period of use, as required by EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE has determined that if network functionality cannot be disabled by the consumer, or if the manufacturer’s user manual does not provide instruction for disabling the function, including the energy consumption of the enabled network function is more representative than excluding the energy consumption associated with the network function. For such products, the energy consumption of a connected function that cannot be disabled will be measured. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of product configurations and installation requirements. 3. Power Settings In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify power setting selection by adding definitions of ‘‘power setting,’’ ‘‘infinite power settings,’’ ‘‘multi-ring cooking zone,’’ and ‘‘maximum power setting’’ in new appendix I1, and by specifying which power settings are considered for each type of cooking zone. 86 FR 60974, 60991. DOE proposed to define power setting as ‘‘a setting on a cooking zone control that offers a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating.’’ Id. DOE proposed to define infinite power settings as ‘‘a cooking zone control without discrete power settings, allowing for selection of any power setting below the maximum power setting.’’ Id. DOE proposed to define a multi-ring cooking zone as ‘‘a cooking zone on a E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations conventional cooking top with multiple concentric sizes of electric resistance heating elements or gas burner rings.’’ Id. DOE proposed to define maximum power setting as ‘‘the maximum possible power setting if only one cookware item is used on the cooking zone or cooking area of a conventional cooking top, including any optional power boosting features. For conventional electric cooking tops with multi-ring cooking zones or cooking areas, the maximum power setting is the maximum power corresponding to the concentric heating element with the largest diameter, which may correspond to a power setting which may include one or more of the smaller concentric heating elements. For conventional gas cooking tops with multi-ring cooking zones, the maximum power is the maximum heat input rate when the maximum number of rings of the cooking zone are ignited.’’ Id. This definition is based on the definition of ‘‘maximum power’’ in Section 3.14 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350– 2:2021, which includes a note specifying that boost function must be considered in determining the maximum power setting. DOE also proposed to clarify in new appendix I1 which power settings would be considered in the search for the simmering setting, based on its testing experience. Id. On a multi-ring cooking zone on a conventional gas cooking top, all power settings would be considered, whether or not they ignite all rings of orifices. Id. On a multi-ring cooking zone on a conventional electric cooking top, only power settings corresponding to the concentric heating element with the largest diameter would be considered, which may correspond to operation with one or more of the smaller concentric heating elements energized. Id. On a cooking zone with infinite power settings for which the available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is more than 150 rotational degrees, power settings that are spaced by 10 rotational degrees would be evaluated. Id. On a cooking zone with infinite power settings for which the available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is less than or equal to 150 rotational degrees, power settings that are spaced by 5 rotational degrees would be evaluated. Id. Based on its testing experience, DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that 5 or 10 rotational degrees, as appropriate, would provide sufficient granularity in determining the simmering setting. Id. Given the provision, detailed in section III.E.4 of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 this document, to normalize the energy use of the Energy Test Cycle to a value representative of a simmering test with a final water temperature of 90 °C, DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that testing more settings would be unduly burdensome. Id. at 86 FR 60991–60992. For cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it is aware that the knob may yield different input power results for the same setting depending on the direction in which the knob is turned to reach that setting. Id. at 86 FR 60992. The cause of this is hysteresis caused by potential backlash in the knob or valve. Id. at 86 FR 60992. To avoid hysteresis and ensure consistent input power results for the same knob setting, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR that the selection knob be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to select the potential simmering setting for the test. Id. DOE also proposed that if the appropriate setting is passed, the test must be repeated after allowing the product to return to ambient conditions. Id. DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that this specification would help obtain consistent input power for a given power setting, particularly on gas cooking tops, and thus improve repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of ‘‘power setting,’’ ‘‘infinite power settings,’’ ‘‘multi-ring cooking zone,’’ and ‘‘maximum power setting.’’ Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal for the subsets of power settings on each type of cooking zone that are considered as part of the identification of the simmering setting. Id. DOE further requested comment on its proposal that for cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, the selection knob always be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to select the potential simmering setting for a simmering test. Id. NYSERDA agreed with the clarification as to which direction knobs should be rotated during the potential simmering setting determination to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2) The CA IOUs supported DOE’s proposal to demarcate discrete test settings for cooking tops with infinite controls, stating that this would minimize the chance that laboratories conduct tests under different test conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also commented that it is not immediately clear where the 5 or 10- PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51521 degree increments start. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs requested greater clarity from DOE on this setting selection process, and that DOE include visual examples to reference. (Id.) In response to the CA IOUs’ request for greater clarity on the starting location of the 5 or 10-degree increments on a cooking top knob with infinite controls, DOE notes that the lowest power setting on a cooking top is the first position that meets the definition of a power setting (i.e., a setting that offers a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating), irrespective of how the knob is labeled. The 5 or 10-degree increments would start at the location of the lowest power setting. In this final rule, DOE is adding this clarification on where the 5 or 10-degree increments start to section 2.8.3 of appendix I1. A small difference in determining the lowest power setting between testing laboratories should not affect the reproducibility of the test results because of the requirement to normalize the per-cycle energy use for the final water temperature, as discussed in section III.E.4 of this document. Indeed, in the 2021 Round Robin, each testing laboratory determined for itself the location of the lowest power setting based on these instructions and in aggregate produced results with reproducibility COVs that DOE has determined are acceptable. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of ‘‘power setting,’’ ‘‘infinite power settings,’’ ‘‘multi-ring cooking zone,’’ and ‘‘maximum power setting’’. DOE also finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR and with the changes discussed above, to specify the subset of power settings on each type of cooking zone that are considered as part of the identification of the simmering setting. DOE also finalizes its proposal to require that for cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, the selection knob always be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to select the potential simmering setting for a simmering test. 4. Specialty Cooking Zone In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include a definition of a ‘‘specialty cooking zone,’’ including the clarification that such a cooking zone would not be tested under new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60992. DOE proposed to define a specialty cooking zone as ‘‘any cooking zone that is designed for use only with non-circular cookware, such as bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51522 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations Specialty cooking zones are not tested under this appendix.’’ Id. DOE requested comment on its proposed definition of specialty cooking zone. Id. The CA IOUs expressed uncertainty regarding why specialty cooking zones should be exempted from testing and recommended that DOE investigate the usage of specialty cooking zones. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs stated that testing units with specialty cooking zones would require a novel approach, but that they do not believe these units should be discounted simply because they are not a uniform circle. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that IEC 60350–2:2017 has some direction for rectangular shapes and elliptical cookware. (Id.) AHAM supported the exclusion of specialty cooking zones under the proposed test procedure and commented that specialty cooking zones for circular and non-circular cookware exist. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14) AHAM recommended removing the reference to non-circular cookware from the definition of a specialty cooking zone, stating that the proposed definition is too strict. (Id.) In response to the CA IOUs’ comment, the predominance of circular cookware on the market suggests that non-circular cookware is not representative of typical consumer usage. Therefore, a cooking zone designed for use only with noncircular cookware would not be expected to be used with any regularity, such that measuring its energy use would not be representative of the energy use of a cooking top during a representative average consumer use cycle, as is required by EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE further notes that its definition of specialty cooking zone does not categorize specialty cooking zones on the basis of the shape of the cooking zone itself; rather, the definition categorizes cooking zones designed for use only with non-circular cookware as one type of specialty cooking zone (emphasis added). See section III.E.1 of this document, for further discussion on testing non-circular cooking zones that are not specialty cooking zones. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposed definition of specialty cooking zone, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR. In response to AHAM’s comment and for additional clarity, DOE is reordering the wording of the list of example specialty cooking zones within the definition to clarify that bridge zones are the only specific example provided of a cooking zone that is designed for use only with noncircular cookware; the references to VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 warming plate, grill, and griddle are examples of types of specialty cooking zones other than cooking zones that are designed for use only with non-circular cookware. 5. Turndown Temperature The turndown temperature (labeled ‘‘Tc’’ in both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021) is the measured water temperature at the time at which the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls to change the power setting, i.e., at ‘‘turndown.’’ The target turndown temperature (which DOE proposed to label ‘‘Tctarget’’ in the November 2021 NOPR) is calculated for each cooking zone according to Section 7.5.2.1 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 and section 3.1.4.2 of appendix I1, after conducting the overshoot test.68 The target turndown temperature is the ‘‘ideal’’ turndown temperature, in that it is calculated such that the temperature of the water can rise higher than 90 °C with the lowest amount of energy use after the power is reduced, making use of the stored thermal energy of the cooking top, test vessel, and water load. Tctarget is calculated as 93 °C minus the amount that the water temperature ‘‘overshoots’’ the temperature at which the power is turned off during the overshoot test. If the measured turndown temperature, Tc, is not between ¥0.5 °C and +1 °C of Tctarget, the simmering test evaluated according to section 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 is considered invalid and must be repeated after allowing the product to return to ambient conditions. In response to the November 2021 NOPR, Whirlpool commented that when the time at which the tester has physically taken the action to rotate the knob is different than the time at which the power stops, the identification of the turndown temperature is unclear. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 15) Whirlpool commented that its data has shown that if the element stays on after the knob has been physically rotated, the water temperature exceeds what Whirlpool characterized as the 93 °C limit. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 16) In response to Whirlpool’s concern that the water temperature may exceed 93 °C during the simmering test, DOE 68 The overshoot test is a test conducted before any simmering tests are initiated. The appropriate test vessel and water load are placed on the heating element or burner, which is turned to the maximum power setting. The power or heat input is shut off when the water temperature reaches 70 °C. The maximum water temperature reached after the power/heat input is shut off is used to calculate the target turndown temperature. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 notes that the test procedure does not define a temperature limit (at 93 °C or any other temperature) that the water temperature must remain under for a simmering test to be valid. Although the value of 93 °C is used as a constant in the formula for calculating Tctarget, this formula does not imply a temperature limit during the simmering test. Nevertheless, DOE agrees with Whirlpool that additional clarification regarding the turndown temperature is needed, in particular to address situations when there is a delay between the time at which the tester turns down the controls and the time at which the power decreases accordingly. DOE considered the test burden of defining the turndown temperature based on the time at which the power decreases. This led DOE to determine that the burden could be significant for products exhibiting this behavior because a larger than typical number of tests could be considered invalid on the basis of Tc not being within the required range and subsequently needing re-testing. DOE compared this burden to the potential repeatability concerns of defining the turndown temperature based on the time at which the tester takes the physical action of adjusting the cooking top controls (e.g., rotating the knob) if the power decrease lag is unrepeatable. In DOE’s testing, for many electric cooking tops, the power level at the lower power settings is achieved by duty-cycling the power to the heating element. For some units this duty cycle may start with the ‘‘on’’ part of the duty cycle. For these units in particular, it may be impossible to determine retroactively from the data when the cooking top power setting has been changed, because the measured power will remain at the maximum output even after the setting has been changed. Therefore, DOE has determined that defining the turndown temperature at the time at which the power drops would not be repeatable. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is defining the turndown temperature based on the time at which the tester adjusts the cooking top controls to change the power setting. In particular, because it can take several seconds to adjust the cooking top controls on certain cooking tops, DOE is defining the turndown temperature based on the time at which the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls (emphasis added). In this final rule, DOE is including definitions for the target turndown temperature and the turndown temperature in section 1 of appendix I1. DOE defines target turndown temperature (Tctarget) as ‘‘the temperature as calculated according to E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations Section 7.5.2.1 of IEC 60350–2:2021 and section 3.1.4.2 of appendix I1, for each cooking zone.’’ DOE defines turndown temperature (Tc) for each cooking zone, as ‘‘the measured water temperature at the time at which the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls to change the power setting.’’ The test procedure adopted in this final rule uses the defined terms where applicable. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include in new appendix I1 the formula for calculating the target turndown temperature after conducting the overshoot test based on DOE testing experience. That experience has shown that referencing the definition of this value in IEC 60350–2 (rather than providing the definition within the DOE test procedure) can lead to inadvertent errors in performing the calculation. 86 FR 60974, 60992. The target turndown temperature is calculated as 93 °C minus the difference between the maximum measured temperature during the overshoot test, Tmax, and the 20second average temperature at the time the power is turned off during the overshoot test, T70. Two common mistakes in calculating the target turndown temperature are using the target value of 70 °C rather than the measured T70 in the formula and failing to round the target turndown temperature to the nearest degree Celsius. Id. By including the formula for the target turndown temperature in the new appendix I1, DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it aims to reduce the incidence of such errors. Id. DOE requested comments on its proposal to include the formula for the target turndown temperature in the new appendix I1. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to include the formula for the target turndown temperature in the new appendix I1. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to include the formula for the target turndown temperature in the new appendix I1. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 H. Test Conditions and Instrumentation In this final rule, DOE is incorporating the test conditions and instrumentation requirements of IEC 60350–2:2021 into the new appendix I1 with the following additions. 1. Electrical Supply Section 5.2 of both IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 specifies that the electrical supply is required to be at ‘‘the rated voltage with a relative tolerance of ±1%’’ and ‘‘the rated frequency ±1%.’’ Both IEC 60350– 2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 further VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 specify that the supply voltage and frequency shall be the nominal voltage and frequency of the country in which the appliance is intended to be used. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in new appendix I1 that the electrical supply for active mode testing be maintained at either 240 volts ±1 percent or 120 volts ±1 percent, according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and at 60 Hz ± 1 percent, except for products which do not allow for a mains electrical supply. 86 FR 60974, 60992. DOE requested comment on its proposed electrical supply requirements for active mode testing. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed electrical supply requirements for active mode testing. During the 2021 Round Robin, DOE observed intermittent instantaneous voltage fluctuations outside of the required tolerance on certain units in its test sample. DOE understands that these fluctuations are a normal response to the turning on or off of major electrical components and that such momentary fluctuations do not measurably affect the unit’s energy consumption. The Task Force has added a statement on the voltage conditions to AHAM’s draft test method, stating that ‘‘The actual voltage shall be maintained and recorded throughout the test. Instantaneous voltage fluctuations caused by the turning on or off of electrical components shall not be considered.’’ This is consistent with language included in AHAM’s HRF–1–2019 test method, ‘‘Energy and Internal Volume of Consumer Refrigeration Products’’, which DOE has incorporated by reference into its test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and miscellaneous refrigeration products. 86 FR 56790, 56801 (Oct. 12, 2021). In this final rule, DOE incorporates this same language into its electrical supply specification for active mode testing of conventional cooking tops. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to specify in new appendix I1 that the electrical supply for active mode testing be maintained at either 240 volts ±1 percent or 120 volts ±1 percent, according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and at 60 Hz ± 1 percent, except for products which do not allow for a mains electrical supply, with the new addition regarding instantaneous fluctuations discussed above. 2. Water Load Mass Tolerance In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify a tolerance on the PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51523 water load mass in the new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60992. Neither the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, IEC 60350– 2:2017 nor IEC 60350–2:2021 includes a tolerance on the water load mass. DOE proposed to specify a tolerance of ± 0.5 grams (‘‘g’’) for each water load mass, to improve the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id. DOE requested comment on the proposed tolerance of ± 0.5 g for each water load mass. Id. NYSERDA commented that it supports DOE’s effort to define a tolerance for water load mass to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2) AHAM opposed DOE’s proposal to set the allowable tolerance on the water load mass as ± 0.5 g, stating that the proposed tolerance is too small and increases test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14) AHAM commented that DOE has not presented data showing the need for this tight of a tolerance and that AHAM has not seen evidence that tightening this tolerance will reduce overall test variation. (Id.) AHAM commented that it requests that DOE investigate alternative tolerances for the water load mass. (Id.) In response to AHAM’s comment, DOE notes that the ± 0.5 g water load mass tolerance was used for the 2021 Round Robin testing, and none of the participating laboratories reported any problem achieving this tolerance. Furthermore, this testing achieved repeatable results. In addition, no stakeholders provided any data indicating that a wider tolerance would not negatively impact the results. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to specify a tolerance of ± 0.5 g for each water load mass. 3. Test Vessel Flatness In its petition, AHAM raised concerns about the impact of pan warpage on the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. 83 FR 17944, 17958. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE investigated potential pan warpage over repeated test cycles. 86 FR 60974, 60992. DOE test data showed some amount of variation in the flatness measurement over time for each test vessel, but there was no consistent or substantive trend. Id. at 86 FR 60993. Therefore, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that pan warpage is not an issue of concern for the test procedure. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposed determination that pan E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51524 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations warpage does not affect repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id. AHAM commented that DOE’s assessment of the effects of pan warpage are inadequate because no gas units were evaluated. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15) AHAM commented that if part of the test vessel is closer or further from the heating source, it will likely have an effect on how the water is heated. (Id.) AHAM commented that it requests information on the types of electric units that DOE evaluated, particularly induction units. (Id.) AHAM commented that this may have implications relating to the use of the same pots for gas and electric units, stating that warpage from gas testing may have significant impact on induction testing when using the same vessels, for example. (Id.) In response to AHAM’s comment, DOE notes that while it does not have data on the effects of gas cooking top testing on test vessel flatness at this time, the 2021 Round Robin testing, which achieved repeatable results, was conducted using the same test vessels for both electric and gas cooking tops. This indicates that if any warpage did occur, it did not significantly impact the repeatability or reproducibility of test results on either gas or electric cooking tops. In response to AHAM’s request for information on DOE’s flatness testing, Table III.3 lists the number of test cycles that were run on each unit type for each test vessel size for which flatness data was presented in the November 2021 NOPR. TABLE III.3—NUMBER OF TEST CYCLES ON EACH UNIT TYPE FOR EACH TEST VESSEL SIZE PRESENTED IN THE NOVEMBER 2021 NOPR Test vessel diameter (mm) 150 Number of Cycles on Coil Units .......................................... Number of Cycles on Radiant Units .................................... Number of Cycles on Induction Units .................................. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its determination, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, that to the extent pan warpage occurs during testing, it does not affect repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. I. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 1. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 62301 EPCA requires DOE to include the standby mode and off mode energy consumption in any energy consumption metric, if technically feasible. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) In the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE incorporated IEC 62301 Second Edition for measuring the power in standby mode and off mode of conventional cooking products. This includes five provisions: the room ambient air temperature from Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, the electrical supply voltage from Section 4, Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, the watt-meter from Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, portions of the installation and set-up from Section 5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, and the stabilization requirements from Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 Second Edition. 77 FR 65942, 65948. DOE also specified that the measurement of standby mode and off mode power be made according to Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, except for conventional cooking products in which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode (see section III.I.2 of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 180 21 4 0 210 7 12 6 this final rule). Id. This procedure is used by microwave ovens in the current version of appendix I. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include the same procedure in the new appendix I1 for conventional cooking tops. 86 FR 60974, 60993. DOE requested comment on its proposal to incorporate IEC 62301 Second Edition to provide the method for measuring standby mode and off mode power, except for conventional cooking products in which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to incorporate IEC 62301 Second Edition to provide the method for measuring standby mode and off mode power, except for conventional cooking products in which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to incorporate IEC 62301 Second Edition to provide the method for measuring standby mode and off mode power, except for conventional cooking products in which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode. 2. Standby Power Measurement for Cooking Tops With Varying Power as a Function of Clock Time In the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE determined that for conventional cooking products in which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode, measuring standby mode and off mode power according to Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 270 0 10 0 Total 0 5 0 28 31 6 Second Edition would cause manufacturers to incur significant burden that would not be warranted by any potential improved accuracy of the test measurement. 77 FR 65942, 65948. Therefore, the October 2012 Final Rule required a modified approach from IEC 62301 First Edition. It implemented the following language in appendix I: for units in which power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, clock time would be set to 3:23 at the end of the stabilization period specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 First Edition, and the average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 First Edition would be used, but with a single test period of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec after an additional stabilization period until the clock time reached 3:33. Id. In a final rule published on January 18, 2013, DOE implemented the same approach for microwave ovens in appendix I. 78 FR 4015, 4020. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate in the new appendix I1 the same approach for measuring the standby power of cooking tops in which the power consumption of the display varies as a function of the time displayed, with clarifications. 86 FR 60974, 60994. In response to a test laboratory’s feedback, DOE proposed to update the wording from that finalized in the October 2012 Final Rule to provide additional direction regarding the two stabilization periods. Id. The proposed language read, ‘‘For units in which power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 at the end of an initial stabilization period, as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations First Edition. After an additional 10minute stabilization period, measure the power use for a single test period of 10 minutes +0/¥2 seconds that starts when the clock time first reads 3:33. Use the average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 First Edition.’’ Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to incorporate into appendix I1 IEC 62301 First Edition for measuring standby mode and off mode power for conventional cooking tops in which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to incorporate IEC 62301 First Edition for measuring standby mode and off mode power for conventional cooking tops in which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 J. Metrics 1. Annual Active Mode Energy Consumption In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to calculate cooking top annual active mode energy consumption as the average normalized per-cycle energy use across all tested cooking zones multiplied by the number of annual cycles. 86 FR 60974, 60994. The per-cycle energy use would be normalized in two ways: first, by interpolating to represent a final water temperature of 90 °C, as described in section III.E.4 of this document, and second, by scaling according to the ratio of a representative water load mass to the water mass used in the test. Id. To determine the representative water load mass for both electric and gas cooking tops for the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE reviewed the surface unit diameters and input rates for cooking tops (including those incorporated into combined cooking products) available on the market at the time of a supplemental NOPR that DOE published prior to the December 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016). To determine the marketweighted average water load mass, DOE used the methodology in EN 60350– 2:2013, which is the same as the methodology in IEC 60350–2:2017 and IEC 60350–2:2021 for selecting test vessel diameters and their corresponding water load masses. DOE determined that the market-weighted average water load mass for both electric and gas cooking top models available on the U.S. market was 2,853 g (equivalent to around 12 U.S. cups or 0.75 gallons) VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 and used that value in the December 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 91418, 91437. DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to use the same representative water load mass for per-cycle energy use normalization of 2,853 g in the new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60994. DOE requested comment on its proposal to use a representative water load mass of 2,853 g in the new appendix I1. Id. AHAM commented that it believes that DOE’s proposed representative water load mass of 2,853 g is overestimated and multiplied by more than one cooking use per day. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15) AHAM commented that it is unclear that this load is representative of actual use. (Id.) AHAM asked DOE to reanalyze this calculation using updated appliance shipments and stated that AHAM is glad to consider providing updated shipments under confidentiality agreement upon request. (Id.) In response to AHAM’s comment, DOE notes that it does not expect the representative water load mass per cycle to have changed since 2016. DOE also notes, as discussed in further detail below, that AHAM’s opposition to the proposed water load mass value is based in part on a mistaken understanding that the annual active-mode energy consumption is calculated based on 12 cups of water per cooking zone per day (emphasis added). DOE clarifies that the annual active-mode energy consumption, as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR, was calculated based on 12 cups of water per cooking top per day (emphasis added); i.e., not multiplied by the number of cooking zones on the cooking top. For reference, DOE further notes that a water load of 12 cups represents roughly enough water to cook 12 ounces of pasta, which is approximately 3–5 individual servings.69 This further supports the determination of 12 cups of water per cooking top per day as a reasonable estimate of representative consumer use. For these reasons, DOE maintains its determination that 2,853 g per cooking top per day is a representative water load mass. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to use a 69 A reputable cooking website states that 4 quarts (16 cups) of water are needed to cook 1 pound (16 ounces) of pasta; i.e., 1 cup of water per ounce of pasta. The same source states that 2 1⁄2 to 4 1⁄2 ounces of pasta represent an individual serving. Using this conversion, 12 ounces of pasta equates to 2.7 to 4.8 servings. See www.eataly.com/us_en/ magazine/how-to/how-to-cook-pasta/. Last accessed April 8, 2022. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51525 representative water load mass of 2,853 g per cooking top per day in the new appendix I1. In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE used data from the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS’’) and a review of field energy consumption survey data of residential cooking from 2009 and 2010 to estimate 207.5 cycles per year for electric cooking tops and 214.5 cycles per year for gas cooking tops. 81 FR 91418, 91438. For the November 2021 NOPR, DOE determined an updated value of annual cooking top cycles based on analyzing data from three more recent sources. 86 FR 60974, 60994. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE analyzed the 5,686 household responses from the 2015 RECS to estimate the number of annual cooking top cycles by installation configuration. Id. The 2015 RECS asked respondents, geographically distributed in the United States, to provide the number of uses per week of their standalone cooking top and the cooking top portion of a combined cooking product (which included a cooking top with a conventional oven.) From these weekly frequency-of-use data, DOE calculated a weighted-average annual number of cooking top cycles of 418. Id. This value represents an average of both gas and electric cooking tops, as well as an average of both standalone cooking tops and the cooking top components of combined cooking products. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that a single value for both gas and electric cooking tops is most representative of consumer usage, as DOE is not aware of any reason for consumers of products with different energy sources to use their cooking products more or less frequently. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE also reviewed data provided by AHAM through its Task Force, which summarized the cooking patterns of 3,508 consumers with connected cooking products, based on information collected via their network functions. Id. Although the data did not identify specific geographical locations, AHAM indicated the sample of consumers represented a distribution of connected cooking product owners across the United States. Id. This AHAM data set showed an average annual number of cooking top cycles of 365. Id. DOE also analyzed a third set of field-metered data (i.e., data collected from measuring the consumption of individual cooking tops as used by consumers in real-world installations), which showed a median of 437 annual cooking top cycles. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use the 2015 RECS value of 418 cycles per year for calculating E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51526 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations annual active mode energy use. Id. This is the median of the three considered values and is based on the largest sample size and broadest distribution by geography and household characteristics. DOE requested comment on its proposal to use a value of 418 annual cooking top cycles per year. Id. The CA IOUs commented that they recommend that frequency of use data be updated to include information collected showing the impact of the COVID–19 pandemic on home cooking habits, as identified in the CA IOUs’ comment in response to DOE’s notification of proposed determination not to amend energy conservations standards for conventional cooking products published on December 14, 2020. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7 referencing 85 FR 80982) The CA IOUs commented referencing a marketing and public relations firm’s study 70 which found that COVID–19 has increased cooking habits and that consumers expect that these new habits will persist. (Id. referencing EERE–2014–BT– STD–005, CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that this projection would increase annual energy consumption projections. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) AHAM commented that DOE’s proposed value of 418 annual cooking top cycles per year in combination with the proposed 2,853 g representative water load mass contribute to an overestimate of annual energy use. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15) AHAM commented that DOE should provide details on its methodology and calculation steps justifying the annual number of cycles from 2015 RECS data. (Id.) AHAM commented that it believes the proposed number of annual cycles is too high and that it exaggerates the representative cycles and the representative water load mass, stating that these values should not be determined separately. (Id.) AHAM commented that the proposed test procedure requires the energy of all four cooking zones to be calculated during a heat up and a simmer, and stated that by its calculation, the annual energy use represents the equivalent of 1,672 operations of one cooking zone’s heat up and simmer per year. (Id.) AHAM commented that the energy test represents, on average, 1,400 seconds of operation per run on each cooking zone and stated that this equates to 23.3 minutes per cooking zone or, by 70 Hunter: Food Study 2020 Special Report (America Gets Cooking: The Impact of COVID–19 on Americans’ Food Habits). Published in December 2020. Available at www.hunterpr.com/ foodstudy_coronavirus/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 AHAM’s calculation, a total of 93 minutes of operations per unit per test (23.3 minutes × 4 cooking zones). (Id.) AHAM commented that the operation time of 93 minutes multiplied by DOE’s proposed number of cycles of 418 and divided by 365 days in a year results in 107 minutes (1.8 hours) of total operation of the cooking top per day. (Id.) AHAM commented that this value conflicts with AHAM consumer research and manufacturers connected data on usage, which show daily usage of 70.1 minutes and 53.8 minutes, respectively. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 15– 16) In response to the CA IOUs’ comment, DOE notes that while the CA IOUs provided data suggesting that COVID–19 has increased cooking habits and that consumers expect that these new habits will persist, DOE does not have data reflecting the degree to which these cooking habits may have changed. DOE is also unable to make projections about future trends in consumer cooking habits. DOE will continue to monitor patterns in consumer frequency of use data and will consider updating its annual energy consumption projections in the future, should additional data suggest that updates are warranted. As AHAM’s requested, below are details about how DOE calculated its proposed value of 418 annual cooking top cycles per year. DOE divided the weekly frequency of use data obtained from 2015 RECS data by 7 to obtain a daily frequency of use of 1.144 average daily cooking top cycles across all product types that include a cooking top. DOE then multiplied 1.144 daily cooking top cycles by 365 days in a year to obtain 418 annual cooking top cycles per year.71 In response to AHAM’s comment regarding its calculation of daily cooking top usage, the annual energy calculation proposed in the November 2021 NOPR represents 418 annual cycles multiplied by the average of all heating elements on a cooking top, not, as AHAM stated, the sum of all heating elements. For example, as proposed, on a cooking top with four cooking zones, the proposed 418 annual cooking top cycles would be allocated over all 4 cooking zones, for an average of 104.5 annual cooking cycles per cooking zone. DOE does not expect, nor does the test procedure calculation project, that each cooking zone be used for 418 annual cycles (for a total of 1,672 cycles on a cooking top with four cooking zones), as posited by AHAM. Assuming a range of 23 to 37 minutes per test cycle (as supported by DOE’s 71 1.144 PO 00000 × 365 = 417.6, rounded to 418. Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 test data),72 418 annual cooking top cycles would result in a range of 9,614 73 to 15,466 74 minutes of cooking top use per year, or an average range of 34 to 42 minutes per day. This is within the range of data AHAM has provided as part of this rulemaking, and the ongoing Task Force, which suggest daily cooking top use ranging from 18 minutes 75 to 70.1 minutes 76 (see section III.J.2 for further discussion of cooking top cycle time). For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to use a value of 418 annual cooking top cycles per year. 2. Combined Low-Power Mode Hours The number of cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours is calculated as the number of hours in a year, 8,760, minus the number of annual active mode hours for the cooking top, which for most product types is equal to the number of annual cycles multiplied by cycle time. Additional calculations, as discussed below, are necessary for the cooking top component of a combined cooking product. In a NOPR preceding the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE investigated the hours and energy consumption associated with each possible operating mode for conventional cooking tops, including inactive, Sabbath, off, and active modes. 75 FR 75290, 75310 (Dec. 2, 2010). In the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE described ‘‘Sabbath mode’’ as a mode in which the automatic shutoff is overridden to allow for warming of precooked foods during such periods as the Jewish Sabbath. 77 FR 65942, 65952. In its analysis leading up to the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE assigned the hours for which the cooking product is in Sabbath mode as active mode hours, because the energy use of those hours is similar to the energy use of the active mode. 75 FR 75290, 75311. DOE estimated an equivalent of 8.6 annual hours in Sabbath mode, based on the number of annual work-free hours and 72 Based on DOE’s test data, the time to t 90 (see definition in section III.E.3 of this document) varies by technology type. For induction units, the time to t90 is around 3 minutes; for coil and radiant units, the time to t90 is around 6–9 minutes; and for gas units, the time to t90 is around 15–17 minutes. The test cycle duration is equal to the time to t90 plus a 20-minute simmering period. 73 23 minutes per test cycle × 418 annual cooking top cycles = 9,614 minutes of cooking top use per year. 74 37 minutes per test cycle × 418 annual cooking top cycles = 15,466 minutes of cooking top use per year. 75 See discussion of this data in section III.J.2 of this document. 76 See AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51527 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations the percentage of U.S. households that observe kosher practices. Id. at 75 FR 75309. In that rule, DOE scaled the 8.6 hours according to the number of annual cooking cycles, the number of cooking products per household, and an assumption that a cooking top would only be used on the Sabbath a quarter of the time. Id. This resulted in 2.2 hours per year for standalone cooking tops, and 8.8 hours per year for conventional ranges. In 2010, DOE estimated that the total number of cooking top cycles per year was 211 (see section III.J.1 of this document), the average cycle time was 1 hour, and cooking tops spent 2.1 annual hours in Sabbath mode. Id. Therefore, in the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE specified that the number of annual active-mode hours was 213.2 and the number of annual combined low-power mode hours was 8,546.9. 77 FR 65942, 65994. In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE observed that for combined cooking products, the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption could be measured only for the combined cooking product and not the individual components. 81 FR 91418, 91423. For a combined cooking product, DOE calculated the annual combined low-power mode of the conventional cooking top component. This involved allocating a portion of the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for the combined cooking product to the conventional cooking top component using the estimated annual cooking hours for the given components in the combined cooking product. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the estimate of the annual combined low-power mode hours for standalone cooking tops and for the cooking top component of combined cooking products. This involved using more recent estimates for the number of annual cooking top cycles and the representative cycle time. 86 FR 60974, 60995. As discussed in section III.J.1 of this document, DOE is using a value of 418 annual cooking top cycles for all cooking tops. For representative average cooking top cycle time, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed data provided by AHAM. The data summarized the cooking patterns of 3,508 consumers with connected cooking products, based on information collected via their network functions. Id. Although the data did not identify specific geographical locations, AHAM indicated the sample of consumers represented a distribution of connected cooking product owners across the United States. This AHAM data set showed an average cooking top cycle time of 18 minutes. However, as DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR, it is concerned that because higherincome households tend to purchase connected cooking products, usage patterns of those consumers may not be representative of the usage patterns for all U.S. consumers. Id. DOE also analyzed field-metered data that showed a median cycle time of 31 minutes. Id. DOE expects the distribution of usage patterns among these homes are more representative of consumer habits in the United States as a whole because the metering was not limited to premium products. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to calculate the number of cooking top annual active mode hours per installation configuration by multiplying the annual cycles estimated from the 2015 RECS by the 31-minute median cycle time, and then adding the appropriate number of Sabbath mode hours.77 Id. DOE estimated the number of annual active mode hours for the overall cooking product using five additional values. The first additional value was the number of cooking tops per household, which was determined to be 1.02 using the 2015 RECS. Second was the annual number of conventional oven cycles conducted per year on combined cooking products, which was determined to be 145 using the 2015 RECS. Third was the number of microwave oven cycles per year, which was determined to be 627 using the 2015 RECS. Fourth was the average cycle time for a conventional oven, which was assumed to be 1 hour. Fifth was the average cycle time for a microwave oven, which was assumed to be 6 minutes. Id. DOE proposed to estimate the annual combined low-power mode hours for the overall product for each installation configuration by subtracting the resulting annual active mode hours from 8,760 annual hours. Id. Finally, DOE calculated the percentages of combined lower-power mode hours assigned to the cooking top component by determining the proportion of overall active mode hours that are associated with the cooking top component of the combined cooking product. Id. The results for DOE’s combined low-power mode usage factors and resulting cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours proposed in the November 2021 NOPR are shown in Table III.4. TABLE III.4—COMBINED LOW-POWER MODE USAGE FACTORS PROPOSED IN THE NOVEMBER 2021 NOPR Product type Overall product Active mode hours per year Combined lowpower mode hours per year Percentage of overall combined lowpower mode hours allocated to the cooking top (%) 216 368 279 431 8,544 8,392 8,481 8,329 100 60 77 51 Standalone cooking top ................................................................................... Conventional range (cooking top + conventional oven) .................................. Cooking top + microwave oven ....................................................................... Cooking top + conventional oven + microwave oven ..................................... jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Cooking top Combined lowpower mode hours per year 8,544 5,004 6,560 4,228 DOE requested comment on its proposed usage factors and annual hours for cooking top combined low- power mode, as well as on any of the underlying assumptions. Id. 77 Given the value of 1.02 cooking tops per household determined using 2015 RECS, and using the same 25-percent assumption of the percent of time a cooking top is left on during the Sabbath (as opposed to a conventional oven), DOE assumed 2.2 hours per year in Sabbath mode for standalone cooking tops and for combined cooking products comprised of a microwave oven and a cooking top; and 8.8 hours per year in Sabbath mode for combined cooking products that include a conventional oven. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51528 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed usage factors and annual hours for cooking top combined low-power mode, or on any of the underlying assumptions, except for comments about the number of annual cycles, as discussed in section III.J.1 of this document. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed usage factors and annual hours for cooking top combined low-power mode. 3. Annual Combined Low-Power Mode Energy In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the annual energy in combined low-power mode for a cooking top be calculated as follows. Multiply the power consumption of the overall cooking product in standby and/ or off mode (see sections III.I.1 and III.I.2 of this document) by the number of annual combined low-power mode hours for the cooking top or cooking top component of a combined cooking product (see section III.J.2 of this document). 86 FR 60974, 60995–60996. As DOE has done in the test procedures for other appliances that can have either an inactive (standby) mode, an off mode, or both, DOE proposed that the total number of cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours be allocated to each of inactive mode or off mode as illustrated in Table III.5. Id. at 86 FR 60996. TABLE III.5—ALLOCATION OF COOKING TOP COMBINED LOW-POWER MODE HOURS FROM THE NOVEMBER 2021 NOPR Allocation to inactive mode Types of low-power mode(s) available Both inactive and off mode .......................................................................................................................... Inactive mode only ....................................................................................................................................... Off mode only .............................................................................................................................................. DOE requested comment on its proposed allocation of combined lowpower mode hours. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed allocation of combined low-power mode hours. For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed allocation of combined low-power mode hours. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 4. Integrated Annual Energy Consumption In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define the integrated annual energy consumption (‘‘IAEC’’) for each tested cooking top. 86 FR 60974, 60996. For electric cooking tops, IAEC was defined in kilowatt-hours (‘‘kWh’’) per year and is equal to the sum of the annual active mode energy and the annual combined low-power mode energy. Id. For gas cooking tops, IAEC was defined in kilo-British thermal units (‘‘kBtu’’) per year and is equal to the sum of the annual active mode gas energy consumption, the annual active mode electric energy consumption (converted into kBtu per year), and the annual combined low-power mode energy (converted into kBtu per year). Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed definition of IAEC. In this final rule, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definition of IAEC. 5. Annual Energy Consumption and Annual Cost Section 430.23(i) of title 10 of the CFR lists the test procedures for measuring the energy consumption of cooking products. As there are no current test procedures for conventional cooking VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 tops, 10 CFR 430.23(i) contains provisions only for microwave ovens. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to renumber the existing microwave oven paragraph as 10 CFR 430.23(i)(1) and to add new paragraphs (i)(2) through (i)(6) containing provisions for measuring the electrical energy consumption, gas energy consumption, and annual cost of conventional cooking tops. 86 FR 60974, 60996. New paragraph (i)(2) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would provide the means of calculating the integrated annual energy consumption for a conventional cooking top, whether electric or gas, including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kWh per year for electric cooking tops, and to the nearest 1 kBtu per year for gas cooking tops. Id. New paragraph (i)(3) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would provide the means of calculating the total annual gas energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kBtu per year. Id. New paragraph (i)(4) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would provide the means of calculating the total annual electrical energy consumption for a conventional cooking top, whether electric or gas, including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kWh per year. Id. The total annual electrical energy PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 0.5 1 0 Allocation to off mode 0.5 0 1 consumption of a conventional electric cooking top would equal the integrated annual energy consumption of the conventional electric cooking top, as determined in paragraph (i)(2). Id. New paragraph (i)(5) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would provide the means of calculating the estimated annual operating cost corresponding to the energy consumption of a conventional cooking top, including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest dollar per year. Id. New paragraph (i)(6) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would allow the definition of other useful measures of energy consumption for conventional cooking tops that the Secretary determines are likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions and that are derived from the application of appendix I1. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposed provisions for measuring annual energy consumption and estimated annual cost. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed provisions for measuring annual energy consumption and estimated annual cost. In this final rule, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed provisions for measuring annual energy consumption and estimated annual cost. K. Alternative Proposals In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it was aware of alternative approaches to the proposed cooking top test procedure and listed alternative approaches that were being considered E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 by stakeholders. 86 FR 60974, 60996. DOE added that it could consider adopting these alternative proposals if sufficient data were available to evaluate whether such test procedures are reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy use of conventional cooking tops during a representative average use cycle or period of use and are not unduly burdensome to conduct. Id. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In this final rule, DOE is not adopting any of the alternative proposals. 1. Replacing the Simmering Test With a Simmering Usage Factor In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE considered an approach to simplify the test procedure such that it requires only a single test per cooking zone. 86 FR 60974, 60997. This test could entail a simple heat-up test at the maximum power setting until the water temperature reaches a threshold temperature, such as 90 °C or the target turndown temperature. A simmering usage factor could then be applied to the measured energy use to scale the energy of the heat-up only test to a value that is representative of typical consumer usage including a simmering phase. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE presented an initial analysis of its test data suggesting that for electric cooking tops, the simmering energy may be a consistent fraction of the heat-up energy for each heating technology type. Id. However, for gas cooking tops, the potential simmering usage factor is more variable by individual cooking top and cooking zone. DOE noted that if it were to adopt a test procedure that uses a simmering usage factor, the usage factor would need to be based on test data and would need to be representative of a tested simmering period on multiple types of products. Id. DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR, based on the available data, that no such single simmering usage factor by heating technology can be defined, and did not propose to pursue this approach. Id. DOE requested data on the representativeness of a simmering usage factor across technology types. Id. The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE’s proposal to include a simmering test for electric and gas cooking top test procedures, stating that it is representative of how consumers will be using the products. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 3) The Joint Commenters agreed with DOE’s tentative determination that the use of a representative simmer usage factor to determine simmering energy VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 would be difficult to define due to the variability of cooking tops and cooking zones, stating that a simmering usage factor would not accomplish the same goals as a simmering test. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at pp. 3–4) The Joint Commenters commented that the inclusion of a simmering test may change the relative ranking of products compared to a heat-up only test. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 4) The Joint Commenters commented that if a usage factor were applied instead of running a simmering test, a consistent factor would be used for each technology type to scale up the energy consumption value. (Id.) The Joint Commenters stated this would fail to reflect differences in simmering energy between different models of the same technology type. (Id.) NEEA commented in support of DOE’s proposal to proceed with a test procedure that includes a simmering portion rather than applying a simmering usage factor, stating that simmer energy cannot be accurately estimated through the application of a universal usage factor. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2) NEEA commented that a Food Service Technology Center report illustrated that simmer rates vary across different appliances and do not necessarily correlate with input rate or boil efficiency. (Id.) NEEA commented that attempting to apply a universal usage factor would oversimplify and misrepresent the range of simmering energies that cooking appliances might exhibit. (Id.) NEEA commented that any attempt to simplify the process of collecting simmering energy data would only be able to occur after a rigorous sample of simmering energy data indicates a clear relationship. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE’s decision to use an actual simmering test rather than a simmering usage factor. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs commented that it is unlikely that a single simmering usage factor would accurately apply to all cooking tops. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE’s tentative determination that a single simmering usage factor by heating technology cannot be defined was based on only minimal evaluation. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 16) AHAM commented that it is collecting data to determine a simmering usage factor and stated that DOE should wait until its data is available before it concludes that no single simmering usage factor by heating technology can be defined. (Id.) AHAM commented that a single simmering usage factor may or may not properly encompass variation but stated that other techniques may be useful such as PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51529 multivariable extrapolation based on factors like cooking zone size, cooking zone rating and/or technology types. (Id.) AHAM commented that the simmering portion of the test introduces the most variation and adds the most burden and stated that a calculation factor would help reduce variation and burden. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE should consider a simmering usage factor in order to meet EPCA’s requirements given the concerns with variation and test burden. (Id.) AHAM commented that it agrees that it is unlikely that a single factor could be applied across different technologies and stated that this is why its testing is investigating other techniques as listed above. (Id.) AHAM commented that developing a multivariable extrapolation would involve testing of multiple technologies with cooking zones of different sizes and ratings, and then creating an equation to estimate simmering energy consumption based on data for each technology, size, and rating. (Id.) AHAM commented that the measured boiling energy consumption could then be added to the calculated simmering energy consumption for a final result. (Id.) AHAM commented that its test plan includes these additional techniques, and that DOE should wait for those results before it can reach a conclusion that a calculation methodology is not representative. (Id.) AHAM commented that the use of a simmering usage factor would reduce test burden and stated that a simmering usage factor would allow for a 6-minute test for each cooking zone without a turndown, compared to what AHAM calculated as 475 minutes (7.9 hours) for the proposed test procedure (using coil and induction cooking top testing as an example). (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 16–17) AHAM presented a table supporting this value of 475 minutes per cooking zone to conduct the proposed test procedure based on the summation of 300 seconds (5 minutes) of overshoot testing; 2,100 seconds of pre-selection testing (a 10minute test run on 3–4 settings, for a total of around 35 minutes); 3,000 seconds of simmering testing (25 minutes each for the minimum-above threshold and maximum-below threshold settings); 1,500 seconds (25 minutes) of likely additional simmering testing due to various issues; and 21,600 seconds of cooldown time (60 minutes between each test, for a total of 6 cooldown periods). (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17) DOE has determined through its testing that a test procedure including a simmering test produces the most representative results for the energy E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51530 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations consumption of each conventional cooking top basic model and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. Use of a simmering usage factor in lieu of a simmering test, as suggested by AHAM, relies upon the inaccurate assumption that the energy use profile of every cooking top is similar to that of other cooking tops throughout a representative usage cycle, which includes both a heat-up and a simmering phase. However, these profiles differ according to the specific design and performance characteristics among various models (e.g., electric heating technology, shape and size of the electric coil, grate material and geometry, gas burner flame turndown behavior and relationship to the grate, etc.). DOE has observed throughout its testing programs that the ratio of energy use during the simmering phase to energy use during the heat-up phase varies between cooking tops and even between heating elements or burners on a single cooking top. The use of a single simmering usage factor would impede the ability for the test procedure to differentiate between various energysaving simmering strategies among different conventional cooking tops. The use of a single simmering factor or other similar analytic approach could disincentivize manufacturers from innovating new energy-saving simmering strategies. Because the use of a simmering usage factor would not capture the differences between various simmering strategies, it would also, therefore, produce results that are not representative of the consumer usage of each conventional cooking top basic model as compared to a test that includes a simmering phase. Regarding AHAM’s comment on test burden, DOE agrees with AHAM that a test procedure that includes only a heatup phase would take less time to conduct. However, as discussed, this type of test would not produce results that are representative of consumer usage. Further, AHAM’s calculation of 7.9 hours per cooking zone for the test procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR overcounts the amount of cooling periods needed. A cooldown period is needed only before an overshoot or simmering test. It is not needed before or in-between the preselection tests, as discussed in section III.D.2.d of this document. Using the values provided by AHAM while removing the unnecessary cooling periods would result in a total time of 295 minutes, or 4.9 hours,78 of testing 78 295 minutes calculated as 5 minutes of overshoot testing + 35 minutes of pre-selection testing + 60 minutes of cooldown + 25 minutes of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 per cooking zone (except for the last cooking zone under test, which would require only 3.9 hours of testing).79 DOE has determined that the conduct and duration of the test procedure established in this final rule is not unduly burdensome. For these reasons, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is not adopting a test methodology that includes the use of a simmering usage factor. To the extent that commenters in the future may wish to have DOE evaluate methodology for a conventional cooking top test procedure without a simmering test, they should submit data and analysis on the record for DOE to consider. In order to ensure that the test method is representative of consumer usage, any alternative method would need to provide an estimated energy consumption specific to the conventional cooking top model under test, rather than yielding an approximate value by means of a generic approach that applies equally for all models. Any such alternative method would need to produce equivalent estimated energy consumption results and associated product rankings as the test procedure adopted in this final rule. 2. Changing the Setting Used To Calculate Simmering Energy IEC 60350–2:2021 defines the simmering setting according to the temperature characteristics of the water load at that power setting. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE considered alternatively defining the simmering setting according to the power supplied at each power setting. 86 FR 60974, 60997. For instance, DOE considered defining the simmering setting as the lowest power setting that is at or above 25 percent of maximum power (or maximum heat input rate for gas cooking tops). Id. To the extent that consumers choose a simmering power setting based on knob position (or setting number) rather than by directly or indirectly monitoring the temperature variation of the food or water in the cookware, this potential simmering testing for the minimum-abovethreshold setting + 60 minutes of cooldown + 25 minutes of simmering testing for the maximumbelow-threshold setting + 60 minutes of cooldown before testing the next cooking zone (except for the last cooking zone under test) + a buffer of 25 minutes to account for potential additional simmering testing = 295 minutes (or 235 for the last cooking zone under test). 79 For a unit with four cooking zones, this is a total of 18.7 hours of testing. This duration is similar to the November 2021 NOPR value of 17.5 hours of testing. For a unit with six cooking zones, this is a total of 28.5 hours of testing. See section III.N of this document for further discussion of test procedure costs. PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 alternative could yield more representative results than the current proposal. DOE previously established a power-level-based test procedure as part of the October 2012 Final Rule. 77 FR 65942. DOE requested data on the representativeness of a simmering setting based on a percentage of the maximum power setting. 86 FR 60974, 60997. The CA IOUs commented that they agree with using the temperature-based test conditions rather than choosing a simmer power setting based on knob position and stated that this results in more comparable and representative results across different units. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) DOE did not receive any data on the representativeness of a simmering setting based on a percentage of the maximum power setting. For the reasons discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is not defining the simmering setting based on the knob position or the power level of the potential simmering setting. 3. Industry Test Procedures DOE is aware that AHAM is developing test procedures for electric and gas cooking tops as part of its Task Force efforts. Although AHAM’s test procedures had not been finalized at the time of publication of the November 2021 NOPR, the provisions in the draft test procedures as of September 1, 2021, were substantially the same as those specified in the November 2021 NOPR. DOE also stated in the November 2021 NOPR that if AHAM were to finalize its test procedures before DOE publishes a test procedure final rule for conventional cooking tops, DOE could consider incorporating the AHAM procedure by reference, instead of using the language adopted in this final rule. 86 FR 60974, 60997. AHAM has not finalized its test procedures as of the publication of this final rule. AHAM commented that since the August 2020 Final Rule, it has been in the process of developing test procedures for electric and gas cooking tops that decrease variation and test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 9–10) AHAM commented that it has been working on a fast track in recognition that DOE is interested in moving this test forward and stated that it has been sharing its insights with DOE throughout the process and plans to share raw data when it becomes available. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 10) AHAM commented that it is in the process of conducting testing at a thirdparty laboratory in two separate E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations locations to assess possible test modifications. (Id.) AHAM commented that its data may not provide a complete picture of reproducibility but stated that it will be relevant to DOE’s proposed test procedure amendments. (Id.) AHAM commented that the completion of this testing was a central reason why AHAM requested a comment period extension on the November 2021 NOPR to March 31, 2022. (Id.) AHAM commented that it was not able to meet that deadline but stated that it plans to file supplemental comments on the proposed test procedure with DOE, stating that it hopes the testing will be complete by September 2022. (Id.) AHAM commented that its members are also considering a scaled-down test plan whereby AHAM could complete testing by July 2022, and that DOE will receive an update if the test plan is revised. (Id.) AHAM commented that the thirdparty laboratory conducting AHAM’s testing has faced numerous obstacles, including difficulty in procuring adequate test vessels, difficulty in executing the technical procedure due to vagueness, logistical issues at the test laboratory, and COVID–19 outbreaks at the testing facility, resulting in closures. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 10) AHAM commented that the certified test laboratory found certain provisions of the test procedure vague, stating that this caused delays. (Id.) AHAM commented that, according to its interpretation, even DOE had to disregard some of the data collected because of the complicated test setup involved, stating that 25 percent of the results were marked ‘‘n/a’’ in the December 2021 NODA. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 10–11) AHAM commented that DOE should allow time for AHAM’s testing to be completed in order to ensure DOE defines a test that is accurate, repeatable, reproducible, representative, and not unduly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 11) AHAM commented that one of the reasons for this delay in its test data collection was that the laboratory experienced longer cooldown periods for electric units than anticipated. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 10) AHAM commented that the test laboratory, which AHAM stated has considerable experience running DOE test procedures, found that testing of a single heating element is unlikely to be completed in a single 8-hour shift for certain technologies. (Id.) AHAM commented that this is an indication that the procedure is unduly burdensome to complete, as the test requires constant technician interaction and monitoring. (Id.) VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 DOE appreciates AHAM’s efforts to develop test procedures for electric and gas cooking tops and notes that it has not yet received any data from AHAM on this issue. DOE encourages AHAM to send any data when it becomes available. DOE notes that it has provided opportunity for stakeholders to provide test results, including two extensions of the comment period on the November 2021 NOPR (see section III.A of this document). As discussed in this final rule, DOE has determined that the established test procedure is reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy use of conventional cooking tops during a representative period of use and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE continues to welcome AHAM’s data and will consider it in the ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking. In response to AHAM’s assumption that the ‘‘n/a’’ notation on the 2021 Round Robin data presented in the December 2021 NODA represented disregarded test data, DOE clarifies that these ‘‘n/a’’ notations represent units that were not tested at particular laboratories (‘‘not applicable’’). As stated in this document and in the December 2021 NODA, each unit was tested at 3 laboratories. 86 FR 71406, 71407. Due to a time constraint, one of the units in the test sample was not tested at Laboratory B, but was instead tested at Laboratory E, resulting in the notation of ‘‘n/a’’ because that unit did not have test results for Laboratory B. Id. Similarly, the units that were tested at Laboratory B were not tested at Laboratory E, resulting in the notation of ‘‘n/a’’ for those tests too. DOE interprets AHAM’s comment regarding longer-than-anticipated cooldown periods for electric units to apply to units that AHAM’s test laboratory has observed to take over 2 hours to return to ambient temperature. DOE notes that, in its experience, a cooldown is typically much shorter than 2 hours. Based on the experience of two of the laboratories that participated in the 2021 Round Robin, the cooldown of a unit typically ranges from 20 minutes to 1 hour. DOE reiterates that the test procedure allows active cooling of the unit under test, and that some effective strategies have included the use of a fan blowing air over a wet cloth laid on the cooking top surface to improve evaporative cooling and the use of a fan blowing air directly into the burner cavity. In response to AHAM’s assertion that a single cooking zone is unlikely to be completed in a single 8-hour shift for certain technologies, DOE’s testing experience indicates that the test procedure can be completed in under 5 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51531 hours on average per cooking zone for any technology.80 L. Representations 1. Sampling Plan In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to maintain the sampling plan requirements for cooking products in 10 CFR 429.23(a), which specify that for each basic model of cooking product a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that any represented value for which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of the mean of the sample or the upper 97.5 percent confidence limit of the true mean divided by 1.05. 86 FR 60974, 60997. DOE sought comment on the proposed method for establishing a sampling plan. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed method for establishing a sampling plan.81 In this final rule, DOE finalizes its proposed sampling plan, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR. 2. Convertible Cooking Appliances DOE defines a convertible cooking appliance as any kitchen range and oven which is a household cooking appliance designed by the manufacturer to be changed in service from use with natural gas to use with LP-gas, and vice versa, by incorporating in the appliance convertible orifices for the main gas burners and a convertible gas pressure regulator. 10 CFR 430.2. In the May 1978 Final Rule, DOE established a requirement for two estimated annual operating costs for convertible cooking appliances: one reflecting testing with natural gas and another reflecting testing with propane. 43 FR 20108, 20110. DOE allowed manufacturers to use the amount of energy consumed during the test with natural gas to determine the estimated annual operating cost of the appliance reflecting testing with propane. Id. DOE provided this allowance based on test data that showed that conventional cooking products tested with propane yielded slightly higher efficiencies than the same products tested with natural gas. Id. In the version of 10 CFR 430.23 finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, convertible cooking tops were 80 See section III.K.1 for a detailed explanation of DOE’s calculation of the estimated test time per cooking zone of 4.9 hours, based on AHAM’s comments. 81 See section III.F of this document for discussion of a comment from Samsung regarding certification and compliance tolerances for gas cooking tops. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51532 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 required to be tested using both natural gas and propane, although the version of appendix I finalized in that same rule listed the test gas as natural gas or propane. 81 FR 91418, 91448. DOE does not require testing both natural gas and propane for any other convertible appliances. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that all gas cooking tops be tested using the default test gas (i.e., the appropriate test gas given the as-shipped configuration of the cooking top) and proposed not to require testing any convertible cooking top using both natural gas and propane. 86 FR 60974, 60998. DOE further proposed to delete the definition of convertible cooking appliance in 10 CFR 430.2, since such distinction would no longer be needed and may cause confusion. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposal to test all gas cooking tops using the default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped configuration of the unit. Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal to delete the definition of convertible cooking appliance from 10 CFR 430.2. Id. AHAM commented in support of DOE’s proposal to test all gas cooking tops using the default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped configuration of the unit and stated that it understands this proposal to be consistent with test procedures for other product categories, such as clothes dryers. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17) For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to test all gas cooking tops using the default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped configuration of the unit and to delete the definition of convertible cooking appliance from 10 CFR 430.2. M. Reporting In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE did not propose to require reporting of cooking top energy use until such time as compliance is required with a performance-based energy conservation standard, should such a standard be established. 86 FR 60974, 60998. DOE proposed to add an introductory note to new appendix I1 to that effect. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed introductory note to new appendix I1. In this final rule, DOE finalizes its introductory note to appendix I1, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR. N. Test Procedure Costs In this document, DOE establishes a new test procedure for conventional VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 cooking tops in a new appendix I1. The test procedure adopts the latest version of the relevant industry standard with modifications to adapt the test method to gas cooking tops (including specifying gas supply tolerances), includes measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use, updates certain test conditions, and provides certain clarifying language. If manufacturers voluntarily choose to make representations regarding the energy efficiency of conventional cooking tops before such time as use of the test procedure becomes mandatory to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards, manufacturers would be required to test according to the DOE test procedure. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE initially determined that the proposed new appendix I1, if finalized, would result in added costs to conventional cooking top manufacturers, if manufacturers choose to make efficiency representations for the conventional cooking tops that they manufacture. 86 FR 60974, 60998. Additionally, manufacturers would incur testing costs if DOE were to establish a performance-based energy conservation standard for conventional cooking tops. To estimate third-party laboratory costs in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE evaluated quotes from test laboratories on the price of conducting a similar conventional cooking top test procedure. Id. at 86 FR 60999. DOE then averaged these prices to arrive at an estimate of what the manufacturers would have to spend to test their product using a third-party test laboratory. Id. Using these quotes, DOE estimated that it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $3,000 to conduct a single test on a conventional cooking top unit, if this test was conducted at a third-party laboratory test facility. Id. To estimate in-house testing cost, DOE estimated in the November 2021 NOPR, based on its testing experience, that testing a single conventional cooking top unit to the proposed test procedure required approximately 17.5 hours of a technician’s time. Id. DOE requested comment on any aspect of the estimated initial testing costs detailed in the November 2021 NOPR. Id. DOE also requested comment on any aspect of the estimated recurring testing costs associated with conventional cooking tops detailed in the November 2021 NOPR. Id. AHAM commented in response to the November 2021 NOPR that the cumulative regulatory burden associated with different energy conservation PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 standards and test procedure rulemakings is potentially significant. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 9) AHAM noted specifically that manufacturers of cooking products, at the time of writing, were in the position of responding to five open rulemakings with limited staff to do so. (Id.) AHAM also commented that the third-party test laboratory that it is working with has updated its test cost quote to $483 per simmering test, for an estimated $3,900 per four-cooking zone cooking top. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 11) As discussed in detail in section III.K.1 of this document, AHAM commented that the proposed test procedure requires 7.9 hours per cooking zone to conduct. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17) Were DOE to establish energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops, manufacturers would be required to test according to the finalized test procedure. DOE recognizes the potential manufacturer burden of multiple simultaneous rulemakings and would evaluate the cumulative regulatory burden in future energy conservation standards rulemakings related to cooking products as provided by its established processes.82 In this final rule, DOE reviewed its third-party test laboratory costs and test time estimates, to provide the best estimate of the total cost to manufacturers if DOE were to implement performance-based standards. DOE is further updating its estimates to reflect the range of typical cooking tops on the market and is providing values for both a cooking top with four cooking zones and one with six cooking zones. In subsequent calculations, DOE used an average of the value for the cooking top with four cooking zones and the cooking top with six cooking zones, representative of the fact that DOE determined through a market analysis that cooking tops have an average of five cooking zones. DOE has reviewed additional test quotes since the November 2021 NOPR, including the one submitted by AHAM in its comments, and has determined that it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $3,200 to conduct a single test on a conventional cooking top unit with four cooking zones, if this test was conducted at a third-party laboratory test facility. The same test would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $5,000 on a conventional cooking top unit with six cooking zones. 82 See 10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 13(g). E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 In the remainder of this document, DOE uses an average value of $4,100 per test. As discussed in section III.K.1 of this document, DOE has updated its estimated test time per cooking zone to 4.9 hours, except for the last cooking zone under test which would require only 3.9 hours. As a result, DOE estimates that testing a single conventional cooking top unit to appendix I1 requires approximately 18.7 hours of a technician’s time for four cooking zones and 28.5 hours for six cooking zones. In the remainder of this document, DOE uses an average value of 23.6 hours per test. Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (‘‘BLS’’) Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for mechanical engineering technologists and technicians is $30.47.83 Additionally, DOE used data from BLS’s Employer Costs for Employee Compensation to estimate the percent that wages comprise the total compensation for an employee. DOE estimates that wages make up 70.5 percent of the total compensation for private industry employees.84 Therefore, DOE estimates that the total hourly compensation (including all fringe benefits) of a technician performing the testing is $43.22.85 Using these labor rates and the updated average time estimate of 23.6 hours per cooking top, DOE estimates that it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $1,020 to conduct a single test on a conventional cooking top unit, if this test was conducted at an in-house test facility. Using the assumptions discussed in this section, DOE estimates that it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $2,040 per basic model, if tested at an in-house test facility and approximately $8,200 per basic model, if tested at a third-party laboratory test facility. DOE also estimates that conventional cooking top manufacturers would need to purchase test vessels in accordance with new appendix I1. DOE estimates that each set of test vessels costs approximately $6,000. 83 DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ‘‘17– 3027 Mechanical Engineering Technologists and Technicians’’ from the most recent BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (May 2021) to estimate the hourly wage rate of a technician assumed to perform this testing. See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm. Last accessed on April 4, 2022. 84 DOE used the December 2021 ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee Compensation’’ to estimate that for ‘‘Private Industry Workers,’’ ‘‘Wages and Salaries’’ are 70.3 percent of the total employee compensation. See www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ ecec.pdf. Last accessed on April 4, 2022. 85 $30.47 ÷ 0.705 = $43.22. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 O. Compliance Date The effective date for the adopted test procedure will be 30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that new test procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) EPCA provides an allowance for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.) As previously stated, no performancebased energy conservation standards are prescribed for conventional cooking tops. Manufacturers are not required to test according to the DOE test procedure unless manufacturers voluntarily choose to make representations as to the energy efficiency or energy use of a conventional cooking top. Were DOE to establish energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops, manufacturers would be required to test according to the finalized test procedure at such time as compliance would be required with the established standards. IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’)12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51533 performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is consistent with these principles. Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866. B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) for any final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/ office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. The following sections detail DOE’s FRFA for this test procedure rulemaking: E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51534 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 1. Descriptions of Reasons for Action DOE is establishing test procedures for conventional cooking tops. Establishing test procedures for conventional cooking tops assists DOE in fulfilling its statutory deadline for amending energy conservation standards for cooking products that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Additionally, establishing test procedures for conventional cooking tops allows manufacturers to produce measurements of energy use that are representative of an average use cycle and uniform for all manufacturers. 2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule DOE has undertaken this rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10), which authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment, including the cooking products that are the subject of this rulemaking. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated DOE has recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE used the SBA’s small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code as well as by industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support-tablesize-standards. Manufacturing cooking tops is classified under NAICS 335220, ‘‘major household appliance manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category. DOE used available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE accessed the Compliance Certification Database 86 (CCD), the Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System 87 (MAEDbS), and the National Resources Canada database 88 (NRCan) to create a list of companies that import or otherwise manufacture the products covered by this final rule. Once DOE 86 U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification Management System, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms. 87 California Energy Commission’s Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System, available at: https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx. 88 Natural Resources Canada searchable product list, available at: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 created a list of potential manufacturers, DOE used market research tools to determine whether any met the SBA’s definition of a small entity—based on the total number of employees for each company including parent, subsidiary, and sister entities—and gather annual revenue estimates. Based on DOE’s analysis, DOE identified 43 companies potentially manufacturing cooking tops covered by this test procedure. DOE screened out companies that do not meet the small entity definition and, additionally, screened out companies that are largely or entirely foreign owned and operated. Of the 43 companies, 12 were identified as a small business. Of these 12 small businesses, seven were further identified—through a review of their websites and online documentation—to be original equipment manufacturers manufacturing covered cooking tops as opposed to rebranding covered cooking tops, integrating the covered cooking tops into some broader product offering, or producing cooking tops for commercial applications. 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Because there are currently no energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops, DOE estimates that this test procedure would not require any manufacturer to incur any testing burden associated with the test procedure. DOE recognizes that energy conservation standards related to conventional cooking tops may be proposed or promulgated in the future and manufacturers would then be required to test all covered equipment in accordance with the test procedure once compliance with any standard is required. (See Docket No. EERE–2020– BT–STD–0013) Therefore, DOE is presenting the costs associated with testing equipment and procedure consistent with the requirements of the test procedure, as would be required to comply with any future energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops. DOE observed that a number of the identified small businesses known to produce conventional cooking tops did not have cooking top models reflected in the publicly available CCD, MAEDbS, and NRCan databases. DOE undertook a review of each small business’s website in order to develop an approximate model count. DOE estimated that the seven small businesses produced a total of 223 basic models of covered cooking tops, for a range of five to 126 basic models and an average of approximately 32 models per small business. PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 DOE assumes that small businesses would contract with third party testing labs to test and certify their covered products. Given DOE’s previously estimated cost of $8,200 to test and certify a single model, DOE estimates it will cost approximately $1,826,600 to test all identified models manufactured by small businesses for an average of approximately $261,228 per small business. DOE was able to identify annual revenue estimates for all small businesses. From these estimates, DOE determined that the estimated testing costs would represent less than 2 percent of estimated annual revenue for all but one small business—for which the cost is estimated to be somewhat over 7 percent of its estimated annual revenue. In addition, DOE expects small manufacturers to redesign or introduce new models of cooking tops on the same three-year timeframe as the broader industry described previously. Using this redesign cycle timeframe and the test costs and model count estimates previously stated, DOE estimated that small businesses manufacturing conventional cooking tops would collectively incur approximately $609,533 in costs every year to test approximately 74 newly introduced or redesigned conventional cooking top models. 5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule. 6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule DOE is required to review existing DOE test procedures for all covered products and equipment every 7 years. Additionally, DOE shall amend test procedures with respect to any covered product, if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product type during a representative average use cycle or period of use, while not being unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(i)) DOE has determined that the DOE test procedure for conventional cooking tops established by this final rule will produce test results that measure cooking top energy use during a representative average use cycle or period of use without being unduly burdensome to conduct. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE examined alternatives to the proposed test procedure, such as determining not to establish a performance-based test E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 procedure for conventional cooking tops or establishing prescriptive-based test procedures for conventional cooking tops. DOE noted in the November 2021 NOPR that while not establishing performance-based test procedures or establishing prescriptive-based test procedures for conventional cooking tops would reduce the burden on small businesses, DOE must use test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. 86 FR 61001. Since establishing performance-based test procedures for conventional cooking tops is necessary prior to establishing performance-based standards for conventional cooking tops, and DOE is required under EPCA to evaluate energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products, including conventional cooking tops, DOE tentatively concluded in the November 2021 NOPR that establishing performance-based test procedures supports DOE’s authority to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE received no comments on its conclusions in the November 2021 NOPR and thus affirms its determination in this final rule that there are no better alternatives than the final test procedure to meet the agency’s objectives to measure energy efficiency more accurately and to reduce burden on manufacturers. Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, manufacturers subject to DOE’s energy efficiency standards may apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details. C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Manufacturers of conventional cooking tops must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including conventional cooking tops. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910–1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. There is currently no performancebased energy conservation standard for conventional cooking tops, and the test procedure established by this final rule does not establish any reporting requirements at this time. Were certification data required for conventional cooking tops, DOE would consider such certification requirements and reporting for conventional cooking products under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE would address changes to OMB Control Number 1910– 1400 at that time, as necessary. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 In this final rule, DOE establishes a test procedure that it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51535 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51536 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply. H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M–19–15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20 Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines %20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. The new test procedure for conventional cooking tops adopted in this final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain sections of the following commercial standards: IEC 60350–2:2021, IEC 62301 First Edition, and IEC 62301 Second Edition. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has received no comments objecting to their use. M. Congressional Notification As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the following IEC standards: IEC 60350–2, ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs– Methods for measuring performance’’, Edition 2.1, 2021–05. This is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures conventional electric cooking top energy use, using a water heating approach. Specifically, the test procedure codified by this final rule references various sections of IEC 60350–2:2021 that address test setup, instrumentation, test conduct, and calculations. IEC 62301, ‘‘Household electrical appliances–Measurement of standby power’’, first edition, June 2005 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures standby power in household appliances. The test procedure codified by this final rule references various sections of IEC 62301 that address test setup, instrumentation, and test conduct applicable to units for which standby power varies cyclically (such as units with a display clock). IEC 62301, ‘‘Household electrical appliances–Measurement of standby power’’, Second Edition, 2011–01 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures standby power in household appliances. The test procedure codified by this final rule references various sections of IEC 62301 that address test setup, instrumentation, and test conduct for the units for which standby power does not vary cyclically. Copies of IEC 60350–2:2021, and both editions of IEC 62301 may be purchased from the IEC webstore at webstore.iec.ch, or from the American National Standards Institute at 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642–4900, or by going to webstore.ansi.org. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 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. 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 Signed in Washington, DC, on July 19, 2022. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends 10 CFR part 430 as follows: PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. § 430.2 [Amended] 2. Section 430.2 is amended by removing the definition for ‘‘Convertible cooking appliance.’’ ■ 3. Section 430.3 is amended by: ■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (p)(3) through (9) as (p)(4) through (10); ■ b. Adding new paragraph (p)(3); ■ c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (p)(6); and ■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph (p)(7); ■ i. Removing the text ‘‘I’’ and adding, in its place, the text ‘‘I, I1’’; and ■ ii. Removing the text ‘‘J2’’ and adding, in its place, the text ‘‘J, J2’’. The additions and revisions read as follows: ■ § 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference. * Signing Authority This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 18, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, VerDate Sep<11>2014 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. * * * * (p) * * * (3) IEC 60350–2, (‘‘IEC 60350–2’’), Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring performance, Edition 2.1, 2021–05; IBR approved for appendix I1 to subpart B. * * * * * (6) IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power, first edition, June 2005; IBR approved for appendices I, I1 to subpart B. * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51537 4. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: ■ § 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water consumption. * * * * * (i) Cooking products. (1) Determine the standby power for microwave ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product, according to section 3.2.3 of appendix I to this subpart. Round standby power to the nearest 0.1 watt. (2)(i) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, according to section 4.3.1 of appendix I1 to this subpart. Round the result to the nearest 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year. (ii) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, according to section 4.3.2 of appendix I1 to this subpart. Round the result to the nearest 1 kilo-British thermal unit (kBtu) per year. (3) Determine the total annual gas energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, according to section 4.1.2.2.1 of appendix I1 to this subpart. Round the result to the nearest 1 kBtu per year. (4)(i) Determine the total annual electrical energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as the integrated annual energy consumption of the conventional electric cooking top, as determined in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section. (ii) Determine the total annual electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as follows, rounded to the nearest 1 kWh per year: ETGE = EAGE + ETLP Where: EAGE is the conventional gas cooking top annual active mode electrical energy consumption as defined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of appendix I1 to this subpart, and ETLP is the combined low-power mode energy consumption as defined in section 4.1 of appendix I1 to this subpart. (5) Determine the estimated annual operating cost corresponding to the energy consumption of a conventional cooking top, including any conventional E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51538 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as follows, rounded to the nearest dollar per year: (ETGE × CKWH) + (ETGG × CKBTU) conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes precedence over the referenced test standards. Where: ETGE is the total annual electrical energy consumption for any electric energy usage, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, as determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(4) of this section; CKWH is the representative average unit cost for electricity, in dollars per kWh, as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act; ETGG is the total annual gas energy consumption, in kBtu per year, as determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(3) of this section; and CKBTU is the representative average unit cost for natural gas or propane, in dollars per kBtu, as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act, for conventional gas cooking tops that operate with natural gas or with LP-gas, respectively. (a) Section 5.1 as referenced in section 2.4.1 of this appendix; (b) Section 5.3 as referenced in sections 2.7.1.1, 2.7.3.1, 2.7.3.3, 2.7.3.4, 2.7.4, and 2.7.5 of this appendix; (c) Section 5.5 as referenced in section 2.5.1 of this appendix; (d) Section 5.6.1 as referenced in section 2.6.1 of this appendix; (e) Section 5.6.1.5 as referenced in section 3.1.1.2 of this appendix; (f) Section 6.3 as referenced in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this appendix; (g) Section 6.3.1 as referenced in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this appendix; (h) Section 6.3.2 as referenced in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this appendix; (i) Section 7.5.1 as referenced in section 2.6.2 of this appendix; (j) Section 7.5.2 as referenced in section 3.1.4.4 of this appendix; (k) Section 7.5.2.1 as referenced in sections 1 and 3.1.4.2 of this appendix; (l) Section 7.5.2.2 as referenced in section 3.1.4.4 of this appendix; (m) Section 7.5.4.1 as referenced in sections 1 and 3.1.4.5 of this appendix; (n) Annex A as referenced in section 3.1.1.2 of this appendix; (o) Annex B as referenced in sections 2.6.1 and 2.8.3 of this appendix; and (p) Annex C as referenced in section 3.1.4.1 of this appendix. (6) Other useful measures of energy consumption for conventional cooking tops shall be the measures of energy consumption that the Secretary determines are likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions and that are derived from the application of appendix I1 to this subpart. * * * * * Appendix I to Subpart B of Part 430— Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Microwave Ovens 5. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 is amended by revising the appendix heading to read as set forth above. ■ 6. Appendix I1 to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows: 0.2 Appendix I1 to Subpart B of Part 430— Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products 0.3 ■ Note: Any representation related to energy consumption of conventional cooking tops, including the conventional cooking top component of combined cooking products, made after February 20, 2023 must be based upon results generated under this test procedure. Upon the compliance date(s) of any energy conservation standard(s) for conventional cooking tops, including the conventional cooking top component of combined cooking products, use of the applicable provisions of this test procedure to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standard is required. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 0.1 0. Incorporation by Reference DOE incorporated by reference in § 430.3, the entire test standard for IEC 60350–2; IEC 62301 (First Edition); and IEC 62301 (Second Edition). However, only enumerated provisions of those standards are applicable to this appendix, as follows. If there is a VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 IEC 60350–2 IEC 62301 (First Edition) (a) Paragraph 5.3 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix; and (b) Paragraph 5.3.2 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix. IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (a) Paragraph 4.2 as referenced in section 2.4.2 of this appendix; (b) Paragraph 4.3.2 as referenced in section 2.2.1.1.2 of this appendix; (c) Paragraph 4.4 as referenced in section 2.7.1.2 of this appendix; (d) Paragraph 5.1 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix; and (e) Paragraph 5.3.2 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix. 1. Definitions The following definitions apply to the test procedures in this appendix, including the test procedures incorporated by reference: Active mode means a mode in which the product is connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and is performing the main function of producing heat by means of a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating. PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Built-in means the product is enclosed in surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures on at least three sides, and can be supported by surrounding cabinetry or the floor. Combined cooking product means a household cooking appliance that combines a cooking product with other appliance functionality, which may or may not include another cooking product. Combined cooking products include the following products: conventional range, microwave/ conventional cooking top, microwave/ conventional oven, and microwave/ conventional range. Combined low-power mode means the aggregate of available modes other than active mode, but including the delay start mode portion of active mode. Cooking area means an area on a conventional cooking top surface heated by an inducted magnetic field where cookware is placed for heating, where more than one cookware item can be used simultaneously and controlled separately from other cookware placed on the cooking area, and that may or may not include limitative markings. Cooking top control means a part of the conventional cooking top used to adjust the power and the temperature of the cooking zone or cooking area for one cookware item. Cooking zone means a part of a conventional cooking top surface that is either a single electric resistance heating element, multiple concentric sizes of electric resistance heating elements, an inductive heating element, or a gas surface unit that is defined by limitative markings on the surface of the cooking top and can be controlled independently of any other cooking area or cooking zone. Cycle finished mode means a standby mode in which a conventional cooking top provides continuous status display following operation in active mode. Drop-in means the product is supported by horizontal surface cabinetry. Freestanding means the product is supported by the floor and is not specified in the manufacturer’s instructions as able to be installed such that it is enclosed by surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures. Inactive mode means a standby mode that facilitates the activation of active mode by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous status display. Infinite power settings means a cooking zone control without discrete power settings, which allows for E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations selection of any power setting up to the maximum power setting. Maximum-below-threshold power setting means the power setting on a conventional cooking top that is the highest power setting that results in smoothened water temperature data that do not meet the evaluation criteria specified in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2. Maximum power setting means the maximum possible power setting if only one cookware item is used on the cooking zone or cooking area of a conventional cooking top, including any optional power boosting features. For conventional electric cooking tops with multi-ring cooking zones or cooking areas, the maximum power setting is the maximum power corresponding to the concentric heating element with the largest diameter, which may correspond to a power setting which may include one or more of the smaller concentric heating elements. For conventional gas cooking tops with multi-ring cooking zones, the maximum power setting is the maximum heat input rate when the maximum number of rings of the cooking zone are ignited. Minimum-above-threshold power setting means the power setting on a conventional cooking top that is the lowest power setting that results in smoothened water temperature data that meet the evaluation criteria specified in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2. This power setting is also referred to as the simmering setting. Multi-ring cooking zone means a cooking zone on a conventional cooking top with multiple concentric sizes of electric resistance heating elements or gas burner rings. Off mode means any mode in which a product is connected to a mains power source and is not providing any active mode or standby function, and where the mode may persist for an indefinite time. An indicator that only shows the user that the product is in the off position is included within the classification of an off mode. Power setting means a setting on a cooking zone control that offers a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating. Simmering period means, for each cooking zone, the 20-minute period during the simmering test starting at time t90. Smoothened water temperature means the 40-second moving-average temperature as calculated in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2, rounded to the nearest 0.1 degree Celsius. Specialty cooking zone means a warming plate, grill, griddle, or any cooking zone that is designed for use VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 only with non-circular cookware, such as a bridge zone. Specialty cooking zones are not tested under this appendix. Stable temperature means a temperature that does not vary by more than 1 °C over a 5-minute period. Standard cubic foot of gas means the quantity of gas that occupies 1 cubic foot when saturated with water vapor at a temperature of 60 °F and a pressure of 14.73 pounds per square inch (30 inches of mercury or 101.6 kPa). Standby mode means any mode in which a product is connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of the following user-oriented or protective functions which may persist for an indefinite time: (1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), internal sensor, or timer; (2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with a display) that allows for regularly scheduled tasks and that operates on a continuous basis. Target turndown temperature (Tctarget) means the temperature as calculated according to Section 7.5.2.1 of IEC 60350–2 and section 3.1.4.2 of this appendix, for each cooking zone. Thermocouple means a device consisting of two dissimilar metals which are joined together and, with their associated wires, are used to measure temperature by means of electromotive force. Time t90 means the first instant during the simmering test for each cooking zone at which the smoothened water temperature is greater than or equal to 90 °C. Turndown temperature (Tc) means, for each cooking zone, the measured water temperature at the time at which the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls to change the power setting. 2. Test Conditions and Instrumentation 2.1 Installation. Install the conventional cooking top or combined cooking product in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If the manufacturer’s instructions specify that the product may be used in multiple installation conditions, install the product according to the built-in configuration. Completely assemble the product with all handles, knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place. Position any electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles in accordance with the manufacturer’s PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51539 instructions. If the product can communicate through a network (e.g., Bluetooth® or internet connection), disable the network function, if it is possible to disable it by means provided in the manufacturer’s user manual, for the duration of testing. If the network function cannot be disabled, or if means for disabling the function are not provided in the manufacturer’s user manual, the product shall be tested in the factory default setting or in the asshipped condition. 2.1.1 Freestanding combined cooking product. Install a freestanding combined cooking product with the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical wall which extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond both sides of the product, and with no side walls. 2.1.2 Drop-in or built-in combined cooking product. Install a drop-in or built-in combined cooking product in a test enclosure in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. 2.1.3 Conventional cooking top. Install a conventional cooking top with the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical wall which extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond both sides of the product. 2.2 Energy supply. 2.2.1 Electrical supply. 2.2.1.1 Supply voltage. 2.2.1.1.1 Active mode supply voltage. During active mode testing, maintain the electrical supply to the product at either 240 volts ±1 percent or 120 volts ±1 percent, according to the manufacturer’s instructions, except for products which do not allow for a mains electrical supply. The actual voltage shall be maintained and recorded throughout the test. Instantaneous voltage fluctuations caused by the turning on or off of electrical components shall not be considered. 2.2.1.1.2 Standby mode and off mode supply voltage. During standby mode and off mode testing, maintain the electrical supply to the product at either 240 volts ±1 percent, or 120 volts ±1 percent, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Maintain the electrical supply voltage waveform specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition), disregarding the provisions regarding batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of relevant modes. If the power measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record the total harmonic content during the test measurement period, total harmonic content may be measured and recorded immediately before and after the test measurement period. E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 51540 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 2.2.1.2 Supply frequency. Maintain the electrical supply frequency for all tests at 60 hertz ±1 percent. 2.2.2 Gas supply. 2.2.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the natural gas pressure immediately ahead of all controls of the unit under test at 7 to 10 inches of water column, except as specified in section 3.1.3 of this appendix. The natural gas supplied should have a higher heating value (drybasis) of approximately 1,025 Btu per standard cubic foot. Obtain the higher heating value on a dry basis of gas, Hn, in Btu per standard cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used in the test either from measurements made by the manufacturer conducting the test using equipment that meets the requirements described in section 2.7.2.2 of this appendix or by the use of bottled natural gas whose gross heating value is certified to be at least as accurate a value that meets the requirements in section 2.7.2.2 of this appendix. 2.2.2.2 Propane. Maintain the propane pressure immediately ahead of all controls of the unit under test at 11 to 13 inches of water column, except as specified in section 3.1.3 of this appendix. The propane supplied should have a higher heating value (dry-basis) of approximately 2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot. Obtain the higher heating value on a dry basis of gas, Hp, in Btu per standard cubic foot, for the propane to be used in the test either from measurements made by the manufacturer conducting the test using equipment that meets the requirements described in section 2.7.2.2 of this appendix, or by the use of bottled propane whose gross heating value is certified to be at least as accurate a value that meets the requirements described in section 2.7.2.2 of this appendix. 2.3 Air circulation. Maintain air circulation in the room sufficient to secure a reasonably uniform temperature distribution, but do not cause a direct draft on the unit under test. 2.4 Ambient room test conditions. 2.4.1 Active mode ambient conditions. During active mode testing, maintain the ambient room air pressure specified in Section 5.1 of IEC 60350– 2, and maintain the ambient room air temperature at 25 ± 5 °C with a target temperature of 25 °C. 2.4.2 Standby mode and off mode ambient conditions. During standby mode and off mode testing, maintain the ambient room air temperature conditions specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition). 2.5 Product temperature. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 2.5.1 Product temperature stability. Prior to any testing, the product must achieve a stable temperature meeting the ambient room air temperature specified in section 2.4 of this appendix. For all conventional cooking tops, forced cooling may be used to assist in reducing the temperature of the product between tests, as specified in Section 5.5 of IEC 60350–2. Forced cooling must not be used during the period of time used to assess temperature stability. 2.5.2 Product temperature measurement. Measure the product temperature in degrees Celsius using the equipment specified in section 2.7.3.3 of this appendix at the following locations. 2.5.2.1 Measure the product temperature at the center of the cooking zone under test for any gas burner adjustment in section 3.1.3 of this appendix and per-cooking zone energy consumption test in section 3.1.4 of this appendix, except that the product temperature measurement is not required for any potential simmering setting pre-selection test in section 3.1.4.3 of this appendix. For a conventional gas cooking top, measure the product temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing any burner cap on that cooking zone. 2.5.2.2 Measure the temperature at the center of each cooking zone for the standby mode and off mode power test in section 3.2 of this appendix. For a conventional gas cooking top, measure the temperature inside the burner body of each cooking zone, after temporarily removing any burner cap on that cooking zone. Calculate the product temperature as the average of the temperatures at the center of each cooking zone. 2.6 Test loads. 2.6.1 Test vessels. The test vessel for active mode testing of each cooking zone must meet the specifications in Section 5.6.1 and Annex B of IEC 60350–2. 2.6.2 Water load. The water used to fill the test vessels for active mode testing must meet the specifications in Section 7.5.1 of IEC 60350–2. The water temperature at the start of each test, except for the gas burner adjustment in section 3.1.3 of this appendix and the potential simmering setting preselection test in section 3.1.4.3 of this appendix, must have an initial temperature equal to 25 ± 0.5 °C. 2.7 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the following instruments, as appropriate: 2.7.1 Electrical measurements. 2.7.1.1 Active mode watt-hour meter. The watt-hour meter for measuring the active mode electrical PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 energy consumption must have a resolution as specified in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350–2. Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350–2. 2.7.1.2 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter used to measure standby mode and off mode power must meet the specifications in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition). If the power measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio during the test measurement period, measure the crest factor, power factor, and maximum current ratio immediately before and after the test measurement period to determine whether these characteristics meet the specifications in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition). 2.7.2 Gas measurements. 2.7.2.1 Gas meter. The gas meter used for measuring gas consumption must have a resolution of 0.01 cubic foot or less and a maximum error no greater than 1 percent of the measured valued for any demand greater than 2.2 cubic feet per hour. 2.7.2.2 Standard continuous flow calorimeter. The maximum error of the basic calorimeter must be no greater than 0.2 percent of the actual heating value of the gas used in the test. The indicator readout must have a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the measured value within the operating range and a resolution of 0.2 percent of the full-scale reading of the indicator instrument. 2.7.2.3 Gas line temperature. The incoming gas temperature must be measured at the gas meter. The instrument for measuring the gas line temperature shall have a maximum error no greater than ±2 °F over the operating range. 2.7.2.4 Gas line pressure. The incoming gas pressure must be measured at the gas meter. The instrument for measuring the gas line pressure must have a maximum error no greater than 0.1 inches of water column. 2.7.3 Temperature measurements. 2.7.3.1 Active mode ambient room temperature. The room temperature indicating system must meet the specifications in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350–2. Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350–2. 2.7.3.2 Standby mode and off mode ambient room temperature. The room temperature indicating system must have an error no greater than ±1 °F (±0.6 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 °C) over the range 65° to 90 °F (18 °C to 32 °C). 2.7.3.3 Product temperature. The temperature indicating system must have an error no greater than ±1 °F (±0.6 °C) over the range 65° to 90 °F (18 °C to 32 °C). Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350–2. 2.7.3.4 Water temperature. Measure the test vessel water temperature with a thermocouple that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350–2. Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350–2. 2.7.4 Room air pressure. The room air pressure indicating system must meet the specifications in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350–2. 2.7.5 Water mass. The scale used to measure the mass of the water load must meet the specifications in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350–2. 2.8 Power settings. 2.8.1 On a multi-ring cooking zone on a conventional gas cooking top, all power settings are considered, whether they ignite all rings of orifices or not. 2.8.2 On a multi-ring cooking zone on a conventional electric cooking top, only power settings corresponding to the concentric heating element with the largest diameter are considered, which may correspond to operation with one or more of the smaller concentric heating elements energized. 2.8.3 On a cooking zone with infinite power settings where the available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is more than 150 rotational degrees, evaluate power settings that are spaced by 10 rotational degrees. On a cooking zone with infinite power settings where the available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is less than or equal to 150 rotational degrees, evaluate power settings that are spaced by 5 rotational degrees, starting with the first position that meets the definition of a power setting, irrespective of how the knob is labeled. Polar coordinate paper, as provided in Annex B of IEC 60350–2 may be used to mark power settings. 3.1.1.1.2 Determine the test vessel diameter in millimeters (mm) and water load mass in grams (g) for each measured cooking zone. For cooking zones, test vessel selection is based on cooking zone size as specified in Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC 60350–2. For cooking areas, test vessel selection is based on the number of cooking zones as specified in Annex A of IEC 60350– 2. If a selected test vessel (including its lid) cannot be centered on the cooking VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 3. Test Methods and Measurements 3.1 Active mode. Perform the following test methods for conventional PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 51541 cooking tops and the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 3.1.1 Test vessel and water load selection. 3.1.1.1 Conventional electric cooking tops. 3.1.1.1.1 For cooking zones, measure the size of each cooking zone as specified in Section 6.3.2 of IEC 60350– 2, not including any specialty cooking zones as defined in section 1 of this appendix. For circular cooking zones on smooth cooking tops, the cooking zone size is determined using the outer diameter of the printed marking, as specified in Section 6.3 of IEC 60350– 2. For open coil cooking zones, the cooking zone size is determined using the widest diameter of the coil, see Figure 3.1.1.1. For non-circular cooking zones, the cooking zone size is determined by the measurement of the shorter side or minor axis. For cooking areas, determine the number of cooking zones as specified in Section 6.3.1 of IEC 60350–2. zone due to interference with a structural component of the cooking top, the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be centered on the cooking zone shall be used. The E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 ER22AU22.001</GPH> jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 51542 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations allowable tolerance on the water load weight is ±0.5 g. 3.1.1.2 Conventional gas cooking tops. 3.1.1.2.1 Record the nominal heat input rate for each cooking zone, not centered on the cooking zone due to interference with a structural component of the cooking top, the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be centered on the cooking zone shall be used. The allowable tolerance on the water load weight is ±0.5 g. including any specialty cooking zones as defined in section 1 of this appendix. 3.1.1.2.2 Determine the test vessel diameter in mm and water load mass in g for each measured cooking zone according to Table 3.1 of this appendix. If a selected test vessel cannot be TABLE 3.1—TEST VESSEL SELECTION FOR CONVENTIONAL GAS COOKING TOPS Minimum (<) Maximum (≤) 5,600 ............................................................................................................................................ 8,050 ............................................................................................................................................ 14,300 .......................................................................................................................................... 5,600 8,050 14,300 ........................ 3.1.2 Unit Preparation. Before the first measurement is taken, all cooking zones must be operated simultaneously for at least 10 minutes at maximum power. This step shall be conducted once per product. 3.1.3 Gas burner adjustment. Prior to active mode testing of each tested burner of a conventional gas cooking top, the burner heat input rate must be adjusted, if necessary, to within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer. Prior to ignition and any adjustment of the burner heat input rate, the conventional cooking top must achieve the product temperature specified in section 2.5 of this appendix. Ignite and operate the gas burner under test with the test vessel and water mass specified in section 3.1.1 of this appendix. Measure the heat input rate of the gas burner under test starting 5 minutes after ignition. If the measured input rate of the gas burner under test is within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer, no adjustment of the heat input rate shall be made. 3.1.3.1 Conventional gas cooking tops with an adjustable internal pressure regulator. If the measured heat input rate of the burner under test is not within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer, adjust the product’s internal pressure regulator such that the heat input rate of the burner under test is within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer. Adjust the burner with sufficient air flow to prevent a yellow flame or a flame with yellow tips. Complete section 3.1.4 of this appendix while maintaining the same gas pressure regulator adjustment. 3.1.3.2 Conventional gas cooking tops with a non-adjustable internal pressure regulator or without an internal VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 pressure regulator. If the measured heat input rate of the burner under test is not within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer, remove the product’s internal pressure regulator, or block it in the open position, and initially maintain the gas pressure ahead of all controls of the unit under test approximately equal to the manufacturer’s recommended manifold pressure. Adjust the gas supply pressure such that the heat input rate of the burner under test is within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer. Adjust the burner with sufficient air flow to prevent a yellow flame or a flame with yellow tips. Complete section 3.1.4 of this appendix while maintaining the same gas pressure regulator adjustment. 3.1.4 Per-cooking zone energy consumption test. Establish the test conditions set forth in section 2 of this appendix. Turn off the gas flow to the conventional oven(s), if so equipped. The product temperature must meet the specifications in section 2.5 of this appendix. 3.1.4.1 Test vessel placement. Position the test vessel with water load for the cooking zone under test, selected and prepared as specified in section 3.1.1 of this appendix, in the center of the cooking zone, and as specified in Annex C to IEC 60350–2. 3.1.4.2 Overshoot test. Use the test methods set forth in Section 7.5.2.1 of IEC 60350–2 to determine the target turndown temperature for each cooking zone, Tctarget, in degrees Celsius, as follows. Tctarget = 93 °C ¥ (Tmax ¥ T70) Where: Tmax is highest recorded temperature value, in degrees Celsius; and T70 is the average recorded temperature between the time 10 seconds before the PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Test vessel diameter Water load mass (mm) (g) 210 240 270 300 2,050 2,700 3,420 4,240 power is turned off and the time 10 seconds after the power is turned off. If T70 is within the tolerance of 70 ± 0.5 °C, the target turndown temperature is the highest of 80 °C and the calculated Tctarget, rounded to the nearest integer. If T70 is outside of the tolerance, the overshoot test is considered invalid and must be repeated after allowing the product to return to ambient conditions. 3.1.4.3 Potential simmering setting pre-selection test. The potential simmering setting for each cooking zone may be determined using the potential simmering setting pre-selecting test. If a potential simmering setting is already known, it may be used instead of completing sections 3.1.4.3.1 through 3.1.4.3.4 of this appendix. 3.1.4.3.1 Use the test vessel with water load for the cooking zone under test, selected, prepared, and positioned as specified in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.4.1 of this appendix. The temperature of the conventional cooking top is not required to meet the specification for the product temperature in section 2.5 of this appendix for the potential simmering setting pre-selection test. Operate the cooking zone under test with the lowest available power setting. Measure the energy consumption for 10 minutes ±2 seconds. 3.1.4.3.2 Calculate the power density of the power setting, j, on a conventional electric cooking top, Qej, in watts per square centimeter, as: Where: a = the surface area of the test vessel bottom, in square centimeters; and Ej = the electrical energy consumption during the 10-minute test, in Wh. 3.1.4.3.3 Calculate the power density of the power setting, j, on a E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 ER22AU22.002</GPH> jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Nominal gas burner input rate (Btu/h) Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 51543 conventional gas cooking top, Qgj, in Btu/h per square centimeter, as: jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 3.1.4.3.4 Repeat the measurement for each successively higher power setting until Qej exceeds 0.8 W/cm2 for conventional electric cooking tops or Qgj exceeds 4.0 Btu/h·cm2 for conventional gas cooking tops. For conventional cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, the selection knob shall be turned to the maximum power setting in VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 between each test, to avoid hysteresis. The selection knob shall be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to select the power setting for the test. If the appropriate power setting is passed, the selection knob shall be turned to the maximum power setting again before repeating the power setting selection. Of the last two power settings tested, the potential simmering setting is the power setting that produces a power density closest to 0.8 W/cm2 for conventional electric cooking tops or 4.0 Btu/h·cm2 for conventional gas cooking tops. The closest power density may be higher or lower than the applicable threshold value. 3.1.4.4 Simmering test. The product temperature must meet the specifications in section 2.5 of this appendix at the start of each simmering test. For each cooking zone, conduct the test method specified in Section 7.5.2 of IEC 60350–2, using the potential simmering setting identified in section 3.1.4.3 of this appendix for the initial PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 simmering setting used in Section 7.5.2.2 of IEC 60350–2. For conventional cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, the selection knob shall be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to select the potential simmering setting for the test, to avoid hysteresis. If the appropriate setting is passed, the test is considered invalid and must be repeated after allowing the product to return to ambient conditions. 3.1.4.5 Evaluation of the simmering test. Evaluate the test conducted under section 3.1.4.4 of this appendix as set forth in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350–2 according to Figure 3.1.4.5 of this appendix. If the measured turndown temperature, Tc, is not within –0.5 °C and +1 °C of the target turndown temperature, Tctarget, the test is considered invalid and must be repeated after allowing the product to return to ambient conditions. BILLING CODE 6450–01–P E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 ER22AU22.003</GPH> Where: a = the surface area of the test vessel bottom, in square centimeters; Vj = the volume of gas consumed during the 10-minute test, in cubic feet; CF = the gas correction factor to standard temperature and pressure, as calculated in section 4.1.1.2.1 of this appendix; H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the gas used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 of this appendix, in Btu per standard cubic foot of gas; Eej = the electrical energy consumption of the conventional gas cooking top during the 10-minute test, in Wh; and Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh, conversion factor of watthours to Btu. Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 3.2 Standby mode and off mode power. Establish the standby mode and off mode testing conditions set forth in section 2 of this appendix. For products that take some time to enter a stable state from a higher power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition), allow sufficient time for the product to reach the lower power state before proceeding with the test measurement. Follow the test procedure as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each possible mode as described in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of this appendix. For units in which power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 at the end of an initial stabilization period, as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 (First Edition). After an additional 10-minute stabilization period, measure the power use for a single test period of 10 minutes +0/¥2 seconds that starts when the clock time first reads 3:33. Use the average power VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First Edition). 3.2.1 If the product has an inactive mode, as defined in section 1 of this appendix, measure the average inactive mode power, PIA, in watts. 3.2.2 If the product has an off mode, as defined in section 1 of this appendix, measure the average off mode power, POM, in watts. 3.3 Recorded values. 3.3.1 Active mode. 3.3.1.1 For a conventional gas cooking top tested with natural gas, record the natural gas higher heating value in Btu per standard cubic foot, Hn, as determined in section 2.2.2.1 of this appendix for the natural gas supply. For a conventional gas cooking top tested with propane, record the propane higher heating value in Btu per standard cubic foot, Hp, as determined in section 2.2.2.2 of this appendix for the propane supply. 3.3.1.2 Record the test room temperature in degrees Celsius and relative air pressure in hectopascals (hPa) during each test. PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 3.3.1.3 Per-cooking zone energy consumption test. 3.3.1.3.1 Record the product temperature in degrees Celsius, TP, prior to the start of each overshoot test or simmering test, as determined in section 2.5 of this appendix. 3.3.1.3.2 Overshoot test. For each cooking zone, record the initial temperature of the water in degrees Celsius, Ti´ the average water temperature between the time 10 seconds before the power is turned off and the time 10 seconds after the power is turned off in degrees Celsius, T70; the highest recorded water temperature in degrees Celsius, Tmax; and the target turndown temperature in degrees Celsius, Tctarget. 3.3.1.3.3 Simmering test. For each cooking zone, record the temperature of the water throughout the test, in degrees Celsius, and the values in sections 3.3.1.3.3.1 through 3.3.1.3.3.7 of this appendix for the Energy Test Cycle, if an Energy Test Cycle is measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, otherwise for both the maximum-below- E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 ER22AU22.004</GPH> 51544 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations threshold power setting and the minimum-above-threshold power setting. Because t90 may not be known until completion of the simmering test, water temperature, any electrical energy consumption, and any gas volumetric consumption measurements may be recorded for several minutes after the end of the simmering period to ensure that the full simmering period is recorded. 3.3.1.3.3.1 The power setting under test. 3.3.1.3.3.2 The initial temperature of the water, in degrees Celsius, Ti. 3.3.1.3.3.3 The time at which the tester begins adjusting the cooking top control to change the power setting, to the nearest second, tc and the turndown temperature, in degrees Celsius, Tc. 3.3.1.3.3.4 The time at which the simmering period starts, to the nearest second, t90. 3.3.1.3.3.5 The time at which the simmering period ends, to the nearest second, tS and the smoothened water temperature at the end of the simmering period, in degrees Celsius, TS. 3.3.1.3.3.6 For a conventional electric cooking top, the electrical energy consumption from the start of the test to tS, E, in watt-hours. 3.3.1.3.3.7 For a conventional gas cooking top, the volume of gas consumed from the start of the test to tS, V, in cubic feet of gas; and any electrical energy consumption of the cooking top from the start of the test to tS, Ee, in watt-hours. 3.3.2 Standby mode and off mode. Make measurements as specified in section 3.2 of this appendix. If the product is capable of operating in inactive mode, as defined in section 1 of this appendix, record the average inactive mode power, PIA, in watts as specified in section 3.2.1 of this appendix. If the product is capable of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1 of this appendix, record the average off mode power, POM, in watts as specified in section 3.2.2 of this appendix. for cooking zones where a minimumabove-threshold cycle and a maximum-below-threshold cycle were measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix. determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours; TS,MAT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of the minimum-abovethreshold power setting test for the cooking zone, in degrees Celsius; and TS,MBT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of the maximum-belowthreshold power setting test for the cooking zone, in degrees Celsius. 4.1.1.1.2 Calculate the per-cycle active mode total energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, ECET, in watt-hours, using the following equation: 4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements 4.1. Active mode energy consumption of conventional cooking tops and any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 4.1.1 Per-cycle active mode energy consumption of a conventional cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 4.1.1.1 Conventional electric cooking top per-cycle active mode energy consumption. 4.1.1.1.1 Conventional electric cooking top per-cooking zone normalized active mode energy consumption. For each cooking zone, calculate the per-cooking zone normalized active mode energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, E, in watt-hours, using the following equation: E = EETC for cooking zones where an Energy Test Cycle was measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, and n = the total number of cooking zones tested on the conventional cooking top; Ez = the normalized energy consumption representative of the Energy Test Cycle for each cooking zone, as calculated in section 4.1.1.1.1 of this appendix, in watt-hours; mz is the mass of water used for each cooking zone, in grams; and 2853 = the representative water load mass, in grams. Patm = the measured atmospheric pressure, in pounds per square inch; Pbase = 14.73 pounds per square inch, the standard sea level air pressure; Tbase = 519.67 degrees Rankine (or 288.7 Kelvin); Tgas = the measured line gas temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit (or degrees Celsius); and Tk = the adder converting from degrees Fahrenheit to degrees Rankine, 459.7 (or from degrees Celsius to Kelvin, 273.16). Where: Pgas = the measured line gas gauge pressure, in inches of water column; 0.0361= the conversion factor from inches of water column to pounds per square inch; VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 ER22AU22.006</GPH> ER22AU22.007</GPH> Where: 4.1.1.2 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active mode energy consumption. 4.1.1.2.1 Gas correction factor to standard temperature and pressure. Calculate the gas correction factor to standard temperature and pressure, which converts between standard cubic feet and measured cubic feet of gas for a given set of test conditions: ER22AU22.005</GPH> jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Where: EETC = the electrical energy consumption of the Energy Test Cycle from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours; EMAT = the electrical energy consumption of the minimum-above-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours; EMBT = the electrical energy consumption of the maximum-below-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, as 51545 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 4.1.1.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top per-cooking zone normalized active mode gas consumption. For each cooking zone, calculate the per-cooking zone normalized active mode gas consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, V, in cubic feet, using the following equation: V = VETC for cooking zones where an Energy Test Cycle was measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, and for cooking zones where a minimumabove-threshold cycle and a maximum-below-threshold cycle were measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix. in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in cubic feet; VMBT = the gas consumption of the maximum-below-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in cubic feet; TS,MAT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of the minimum-abovethreshold power setting test for the cooking zone, in degrees Celsius; and TS,MBT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of the maximum-belowthreshold power setting test for the cooking zone, in degrees Celsius. 4.1.1.2.3 Conventional gas cooking top per-cooking zone active mode normalized electrical energy consumption. For each cooking zone, calculate the per-cooking zone normalized active mode electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, Ee, in watt-hours, using the following equation: 4.1.1.2.4 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active mode gas energy consumption. Calculate the per-cycle active mode gas energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, ECGG, in Btu, using the following equation: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 Where: n, mz, and 2853 are defined in section 4.1.1.1.2 of this appendix; Vz = the normalized gas consumption representative of the Energy Test Cycle for each cooking zone, as calculated in section 4.1.1.2.2 of this appendix, in cubic feet; and CF = the gas correction factor to standard temperature and pressure, as calculated in section 4.1.1.2.1 of this appendix H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the gas used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 of this appendix, expressed in Btu per standard cubic foot of gas. 4.1.1.2.5 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active mode electrical energy consumption. Calculate the percycle active mode electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, ECGE, in watt-hours, using the following equation: Where: n, mz, and 2853 are defined in section 4.1.1.1.2 of this appendix; and Eez = the normalized electrical energy consumption representative of the Energy Test Cycle for each cooking zone, PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 4.1.1.2.6 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active-mode total energy consumption. Calculate the per-cycle active mode total energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, ECGT, in Btu, using the following equation: ECGT = ECGG + (ECGE × Ke) Where: ECGG = the per-cycle active mode gas energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.1.2.4 of this appendix, in Btu; ECGE = the per-cycle active mode electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.1.2.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours; and Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh, conversion factor of watthours to Btu. 4.1.2 Annual active mode energy consumption of a conventional cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 4.1.2.1 Conventional electric cooking top annual active mode energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode total energy consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, EAET, in kilowatt-hours per year, using the following equation: EAET = ECET × K × NC Where: E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 ER22AU22.011</GPH> Where: Ee,ETC = the electrical energy consumption of the Energy Test Cycle from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours; Ee,MAT = the electrical energy consumption of the minimum-above-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours; Ee,MBT = the electrical energy consumption of the maximum-below-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours; TS,MAT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of the minimum-abovethreshold power setting test for the cooking zone, in degrees Celsius; and TS,MBT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of the maximum-belowthreshold power setting test for the cooking zone, in degrees Celsius. as calculated in section 4.1.1.2.3 of this appendix, in watt-hours. ER22AU22.010</GPH> jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 for cooking zones where a minimumabove-threshold cycle and a maximum-below-threshold cycle were measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix. Ee = Ee,ETC for cooking zones where an Energy Test Cycle was measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, and ER22AU22.009</GPH> Where: VETC = the gas consumption of the Energy Test Cycle from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in cubic feet; VMAT = the gas consumption of the minimum-above-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined ER22AU22.008</GPH> 51546 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations ECET = the conventional electric cooking top per-cycle active mode total energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.1.1.2 of this appendix, in watt-hours; K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; and NC = 418 cooking cycles per year, the average number of cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event estimated for conventional cooking tops. 4.1.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode energy consumption. 4.1.2.2.1 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode gas energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode gas energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, EAGG, in kBtu per year, using the following equation: EAGG = ECGG × K × NC Where: K and NC are defined in section 4.1.2.1 of this appendix; and ECGG = the conventional gas cooking top percycle active mode gas energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.1.2.4 of this appendix, in Btu. 4.1.2.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode electrical energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, EAGE, in kilowatt-hours per year, using the following equation: EAGE = ECGE × K × NC Where: K and NC are defined in section 4.1.2.1 of this appendix; and ECGE = the conventional gas cooking top percycle active mode electrical energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.1.2.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours. 4.1.2.2.3 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode total energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode total energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, EAGT, in kBtu per year, using the following equation: EAGT = EAGG + (EAGE × Ke) Where: EAGG = the conventional gas cooking top annual active mode gas energy consumption as determined in section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix, in kBtu per year; EAGE = the conventional gas cooking top annual active mode electrical energy consumption as determined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix, in kilowatthours per year; and 51547 Ke is defined in section 4.1.1.2.6 of this appendix. 4.2 Annual combined low-power mode energy consumption of a conventional cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 4.2.1 Conventional cooking top annual combined low-power mode energy consumption. Calculate the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for a conventional cooking top, ETLP, in kilowatt-hours per year, using the following equation: ETLP = [(PIA × FIA) + (POM × FOM)] × K × ST Where: PIA = inactive mode power, in watts, as measured in section 3.2.1 of this appendix; POM = off mode power, in watts, as measured in section 3.2.2 of this appendix; FIA and FOM are the portion of annual hours spent in inactive mode and off mode hours respectively, as defined in Table 4.2.1 of this appendix; K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; and ST = 8,544, total number of inactive mode and off mode hours per year for a conventional cooking top. TABLE 4.2.1—ANNUAL HOUR MULTIPLIERS Types of low-power mode(s) available FIA FOM Both inactive and off mode ...................................................................................................................................... Inactive mode only ................................................................................................................................................... Off mode only .......................................................................................................................................................... 4.2.2 Conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product annual combined low-power mode energy consumption. Calculate the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, ETLP, in kilowatt-hours per year, using the following equation: ETLP = [(PIA × FIA) + (POM × FOM)] × K × STOT × HC Where: PIA, POM, FIA, FOM, and K are defined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix; 0.5 1 0 0.5 0 1 STOT = the total number of inactive mode and off mode hours per year for a combined cooking product, as defined in Table 4.2.2 of this appendix; and HC = the percentage of hours per year assigned to the conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as defined in Table 4.2.2 of this appendix. TABLE 4.2.2—COMBINED COOKING PRODUCT USAGE FACTORS Type of combined cooking product STOT jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Cooking top and conventional oven (conventional range) ...................................................................................... Cooking top and microwave oven ........................................................................................................................... Cooking top, conventional oven, and microwave oven ........................................................................................... 4.3 Integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. 4.3.1 Conventional electric cooking top integrated annual energy consumption. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption, IAEC, of a conventional electric cooking top, in VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 kilowatt-hours per year, using the following equation: IAEC = EAET + ETLP Where: EAET = the conventional electric cooking top annual active mode energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.2.1 of this appendix; and ETLP = the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption of a conventional PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 8,392 8,481 8,329 HC 60 77 51 cooking top or any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as determined in section 4.2 of this appendix. 4.3.2 Conventional gas cooking top integrated annual energy consumption. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption, IAEC, of a conventional gas cooking top, in kBtu per year, defined as: E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2 51548 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 161 / Monday, August 22, 2022 / Rules and Regulations IAEC = EAGT + (ETLP × Ke) jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2 Where: EAGT = the conventional gas cooking top annual active mode total energy VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:33 Aug 19, 2022 Jkt 256001 consumption, as determined in section 4.1.2.2.3 of this appendix; ETLP = the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption of a conventional cooking top or any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 product, as determined in section 4.2 of this appendix; and Ke is defined in section 4.1.1.2.6 of this appendix. [FR Doc. 2022–15725 Filed 8–19–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P E:\FR\FM\22AUR2.SGM 22AUR2

Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 161 (Monday, August 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51492-51548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15725]



[[Page 51491]]

Vol. 87

Monday,

No. 161

August 22, 2022

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 430





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

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

[[Page 51492]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

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


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Cooking Products

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

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, webinar 
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is 
available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some 
documents listed in the index, such as those containing information 
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
    A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023. The docket web page contains instructions 
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the 
docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following 
industry standards into appendix I1 to subpart B of part 430:
    International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') 62301, 
``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power'', 
first edition, June 2005 (``IEC 62301 First Edition'').
    IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of 
standby power'', Edition 2.0, 2011-01 (``IEC 62301 Second Edition'').
    IEC 60350-2, ``Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs--
Methods for measuring performance'', Edition 2.1, 2021-05 (``IEC 60350-
2:2021'').
    Copies of IEC 62301 First Edition, IEC 62301 Second Edition and IEC 
60350-2:2021 can be obtained from the International Electrotechnical 
Commission at 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, or by 
going to webstore.ansi.org.
    See section IV.N of this document for further discussion of these 
standards.

Technical Correction

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

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. General Comments
    B. Scope of Applicability
    C. Round Robin Test Results
    D. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 60350-2:2021 for Measuring 
Energy Consumption
    1. Water-Heating Test Methodology
    2. Differences Between IEC 60350-2:2021 and Previous Versions
    E. Modifications to IEC 60350-2:2021 Methodology To Reduce 
Testing Burden
    1. Test Vessel Selection for Electric Cooking Tops
    2. Temperature Specifications
    3. Determination of the Simmering Setting
    4. Normalizing Per-Cycle Energy Use for the Final Water 
Temperature
    F. Extension of Methodology to Gas Cooking Tops
    1. Gas Test Conditions
    2. Gas Supply Instrumentation
    3. Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops
    4. Burner Heat Input Rate Adjustment
    5. Target Power Density for Optional Potential Simmering Setting 
Pre-Selection Test
    6. Product Temperature Measurement for Gas Cooking Tops
    G. Definitions and Clarifications
    1. Operating Modes
    2. Product Configuration and Installation Requirements
    3. Power Settings
    4. Specialty Cooking Zone
    5. Turndown Temperature
    H. Test Conditions and Instrumentation
    1. Electrical Supply
    2. Water Load Mass Tolerance
    3. Test Vessel Flatness
    I. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption
    1. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 62301
    2. Standby Power Measurement for Cooking Tops With Varying Power 
as a Function of Clock Time
    J. Metrics
    1. Annual Active Mode Energy Consumption
    2. Combined Low-Power Mode Hours
    3. Annual Combined Low-Power Mode Energy
    4. Integrated Annual Energy Consumption
    5. Annual Energy Consumption and Annual Cost
    K. Alternative Proposals
    1. Replacing the Simmering Test With a Simmering Usage Factor
    2. Changing the Setting Used to Calculate Simmering Energy
    3. Industry Test Procedures
    L. Representations
    1. Sampling Plan
    2. Convertible Cooking Appliances
    M. Reporting
    N. Test Procedure Costs
    O. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Descriptions of Reasons for Action
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations

[[Page 51493]]

    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Kitchen ranges and ovens are included in the list of ``covered 
products'' for which the Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized 
to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test 
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) DOE's regulations at title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430 section 2 defines 
``cooking products,'' \1\ which cover cooking appliances that use gas, 
electricity, or microwave energy as the source of heat. The section 
also defines specific categories of cooking products: conventional 
cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, and a term for 
products that do not fall into those categories: ``other cooking 
products.'' DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedure for 
cooking products are currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10 
CFR part 430 subpart B appendix I (``appendix I''), respectively. Only 
microwave oven test procedures are currently specified in appendix I. 
DOE is creating a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430 subpart B 
appendix I1 (``appendix I1'') that establishes a test procedure for 
conventional cooking tops. The following sections discuss DOE's 
authority to establish test procedures for conventional cooking tops 
and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of 
test procedures for this product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOE established the regulatory term ``cooking products'' in 
lieu of the statutory term ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' (42 U.S.C. 
6292(a)(10)) having determined that the latter is obsolete and does 
not accurately describe the products considered, which include 
microwave ovens, conventional ranges, cooking tops, and ovens. 63 FR 
48038, 48052 (Sep. 8, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\2\ 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \3\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth 
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These 
products include cooking products, and specifically conventional 
cooking tops, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), 
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), 
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    The testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) 
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) 
making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42 
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for 
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or 
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual 
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use 
cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall not 
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate 
test procedures for each type of covered product, including cooking 
products, to determine whether amended test procedures would more 
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test 
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy 
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use 
cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
    If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a 
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be 
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the 
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons 
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments 
with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule 
to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed 
270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary 
shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines 
relevant to such procedure, including technological developments 
relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of 
covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)). If DOE determines 
that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its 
determination not to amend the test procedures.
    In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for 
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode 
energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy 
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test 
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically 
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode 
energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test 
is technically feasible. (Id.) Any such amendment must consider the

[[Page 51494]]

most current versions of IEC 62301 \4\ and IEC 62087 \5\ as applicable. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of 
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
    \5\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of 
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015, 
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Background

    As stated, DOE's test procedure for cooking products appears at 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I (``Uniform Test Method for 
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Cooking Products''). The current 
Federal test procedure provides for the testing only of standby power 
of microwave ovens. There are no provisions for testing conventional 
cooking tops or conventional ovens. DOE is adopting testing provisions 
only for conventional cooking tops in this final rule.
    DOE originally established test procedures for cooking products in 
a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1978 (``May 
1978 Final Rule''). 43 FR 20108, 20120-20128. In the years following, 
DOE amended the test procedure for conventional cooking tops on several 
occasions. Those amendments included the adoption of standby and off 
mode provisions in a final rule published on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 
65942, the ``October 2012 Final Rule'') that satisfied the EPCA 
requirement that DOE include measures of standby mode and off mode 
power in its test procedures for covered products, if technically 
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
    In a final rule published December 16, 2016 (``December 2016 Final 
Rule''), DOE amended 10 CFR part 430 to incorporate by reference, for 
use in the conventional cooking top test procedure, the relevant 
sections of the Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization 
(``CENELEC'') Standard 60350-2:2013, ``Household electric appliances--
Part 2: Hobs--Method for measuring performance'' (``EN 60350-2:2013''), 
which uses a water-heating test method to measure the energy 
consumption of electric cooking tops, and extended the water-heating 
test method specified in EN 60350-2:2013 to gas cooking tops. 81 FR 
91418.
    On August 18, 2020, DOE published a final rule (``August 2020 Final 
Rule'') withdrawing the test procedure for conventional cooking tops. 
85 FR 50757. DOE initiated the rulemaking for the August 2020 Final 
Rule in response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by the 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') (``AHAM 
petition''). AHAM asserted that the then-current test procedure for gas 
cooking tops was not representative, and, for both gas and electric 
cooking tops, had such a high level of variation that it did not 
produce accurate results for certification and enforcement purposes and 
did not assist consumers in making purchasing decisions based on energy 
efficiency. 85 FR 50757, 50760; see also 80 FR 17944 (Apr. 25, 2018).
    At the time of the AHAM petition, the Federal test procedure for 
cooking tops measured the integrated annual energy consumption of both 
gas and electric cooking tops based on EN 60350-2:2013.\6\ See, 
appendix I of 10 CFR part 430 subpart B edition revised as of January 
1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EN 60350-2:2013 test method was based on the same test 
methods in the draft version of IEC 60350-2 Second Edition, at the 
time of publication of the final rule adopting EN 60350-2:2013. 
Based on comments received during the development of the draft, DOE 
stated in the December 2016 Final Rule that it expected the IEC 
procedure, once finalized, would retain the same basic test method 
as contained in EN 60350-2:2013, and incorporated EN 60350-2:2013 by 
reference in appendix I. 81 FR 91418, 91421 (Dec. 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE withdrew the test procedure for conventional cooking tops in 
the August 2020 Final Rule based on test data submitted by outside 
parties indicating that the test procedure for conventional cooking 
tops yielded inconsistent results.\7\ 85 FR 50757, 50760. DOE's test 
data for electric cooking tops from testing conducted at a single 
laboratory showed small variations. Id. Lab-to-lab test results 
submitted by AHAM showed high levels of variation for gas and electric 
cooking tops. Id. at 85 FR 50763. DOE determined that the inconsistency 
in results of such testing showed the results to be unreliable, and 
that it was unduly burdensome to require cooking top tests be conducted 
using that test method without further study to resolve those 
inconsistencies. Id. at 85 FR 50760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    \9\ Request from AHAM (EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0007) available at 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 51495]]



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

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

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

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE establishes a new test procedure at 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, appendix I1, ``Uniform Test Method for the 
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products.'' 
For use in appendix I1, DOE also amends 10 CFR part 430 to incorporate 
by reference IEC 60350-2 (Edition 2.1, 2021-05), ``Household electric 
cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'', 
the current version of the applicable industry standard. Appendix I1:
    (1) Reduces the test burden and improves the repeatability and 
reproducibility \11\ of testing conducted to IEC 60350-2:2021 by:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (a) Simplifying the test vessel selection process for electrical 
cooking tops;
    (b) Modifying the room temperature, product temperature, and 
initial water temperature requirements;
    (c) Providing criteria for determining the simmering setting during 
energy testing; and
    (d) Normalizing the per-cycle energy use to account for the water 
temperature at the end of the simmering period;
    (2) Applies IEC 60350-2:2021 to the measurement of gas cooking tops 
by including:
    (a) Specifications for gas supply instrumentation and test 
conditions;
    (b) Test vessel selection based on nominal heat input rate;
    (c) Adjustment methods and specifications for the maximum heat 
input rate; and
    (d) Target power density for the optional potential simmering 
setting pre-selection test;
    (3) Provides additional specifications, including:
    (a) Definitions for operating modes, product configurations, test 
settings, test parameters, and instrumentation;
    (b) Test conditions, including electrical supply characteristics 
and water load mass tolerance;
    (c) Instructions for product installation according to product 
configuration; and
    (d) Instructions for determining power settings for multi-ring 
cooking zones and cooking zones with infinite power settings and 
rotating knobs;
    (4) Provides means for measuring cooking top annual energy use in 
standby mode and off mode by:
    (a) Applying certain provisions from IEC 62301, ``Household 
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power'', First Edition, 
2005-06, and IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement 
of standby power'', Edition 2.0 2011-01;
    (b) Defining the number of hours spent in combined low-power mode; 
and
    (c) Defining the allocation of combined low-power mode hours to the 
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product; and
    (5) Defines the integrated annual energy use metric by specifying 
the representative water load mass and the number of annual cooking top 
cycles.
    DOE is also adding calculations of annual energy consumption and 
estimated annual operating cost to 10 CFR 430.23(i) and renaming the 
test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I to ``Uniform 
Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Microwave Ovens.''
    Table II.1 summarizes DOE's modifications to the cooking top test 
procedure compared to the current industry test procedure, as well as 
the reasons for the provisions in new appendix I1. DOE's reorganization 
of appendix I is summarized in Table II.2.

[[Page 51496]]



 Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Newly Established Test Procedure
     for Conventional Cooking Products Relative to the Industry Test
                   Procedure Incorporated by Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     IEC 60350-2:2021 test         Appendix I1 test
           procedure                   procedure           Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addresses only electric         Addresses both          Include all
 cooking tops.                   electric and gas        covered cooking
                                 cooking tops,           tops.
                                 including new
                                 provisions specific
                                 to gas test
                                 conditions,
                                 instrumentation, and
                                 test conduct.
Includes an incomplete list of  Includes definitions    Improve
 definitions.                    of operating modes,     readability of
                                 product                 test procedure.
                                 configurations, test
                                 settings, test
                                 parameters, and
                                 specialty cooking
                                 zone.
Installation instructions       Provides additional     Improve
 specify only that the cooking   detail for the          readability of
 product is to be installed in   installation            test procedure.
 accordance with manufacturer    instructions, by
 instructions.                   product
                                 configuration, as
                                 well as definitions
                                 of those
                                 configurations.
Does not include provisions     Incorporates            EPCA
 for measuring standby mode      provisions of IEC       requirement.
 and off mode energy.            62301 (first and
                                 second editions) to
                                 measure standby mode
                                 and off mode power
                                 and calculate annual
                                 combined low-power
                                 mode energy.
Specifies a room and starting   Specifies a room and    Decrease test
 product temperature of 23       starting product        burden.
  2 degrees          temperature of 25
 Celsius (``[deg]C'').            5
                                 [deg]C. Specifies
                                 that the temperature
                                 must be stable,
                                 defines stable
                                 temperature, and
                                 specifies how to
                                 measure the product
                                 temperature.
Specifies an initial water      Specifies an initial    Decrease test
 temperature of 15  0.5 [deg]C.              25  0.5
                                 [deg]C.
Specifies complex requirements  Requires the use of     Improve
 for determining test vessel     the cookware that is    readability of
 sizes for cooking tops with 4   closest in size to      test procedure
 or more cooking zones,          the heating element     and decrease
 requiring that the set of       size, without           test burden.
 vessels comprise at least 3     consideration of
 of 4 defined cookware size      cookware size
 categories.                     categories.
Does not include a tolerance    Specifies a 0.5 gram    Improve
 on the mass of the water load.  (``g'') tolerance on    repeatability
                                 the mass of the water   and
                                 load.                   reproducibility
                                                         .
The measured energy             The energy consumption  Improve
 consumption of the simmering    of the simmering        representativen
 period is not normalized to     period is normalized    ess of test
 account for a final water       to represent a final    results.
 temperature above the nominal   water temperature of
 90 [deg]C.                      exactly 90 [deg]C.
Uses a 1000 g water load to     Uses a 2853 g water     Improve
 normalize energy consumption.   load to normalize       representativen
                                 energy consumption.     ess of test
                                                         results.
Does not calculate annual       Calculates annual       Provide a
 energy use.                     energy use based on     representative
                                 418 cooking cycles      measure of
                                 per year and 31         annual energy
                                 minutes per cycle.      consumption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table II.2--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure for
           Microwave Ovens Relative to Existing Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Existing DOE test procedure   Amended test procedure     Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix I title refers to all  Appendix I title        Improve
 cooking products, but           refers only to          readability of
 includes test procedures only   microwave ovens.        test procedure.
 for microwave ovens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has determined that the new test procedure described in section 
III of this document and adopted in this final rule will produce 
measurements of energy use that are representative of an average use 
cycle and are not unduly burdensome to conduct. Discussion of DOE's 
actions are addressed in detail in section III of this document. 
Additionally, DOE provides estimates of the cost of testing for 
industry in section III.N of this document. DOE notes that there are 
currently no performance-based energy conservation standards prescribed 
for conventional cooking tops.
    The effective date for the new test procedure adopted in this final 
rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register. Manufacturers will not be required to conduct the test 
procedure until compliance is required with any future applicable 
standards that are established, unless manufacturers voluntarily choose 
to make representations as to the energy use or energy efficiency of a 
conventional cooking top. To the extent manufacturers make voluntary 
representations as to the energy use or energy efficiency of a 
conventional cooking top, representations of energy use or energy 
efficiency must be based on testing in accordance with the new test 
procedure beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule.

III. Discussion

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

A. General Comments

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

[[Page 51497]]

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

[[Page 51498]]

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

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

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

B. Scope of Applicability

    This rulemaking applies to conventional cooking tops, a category of 
cooking products which are household cooking appliances consisting of a 
horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a 
gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating. 
10 CFR 430.2. A conventional cooking top includes any conventional 
cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Id.
    As discussed in section I.A of this document, EPCA authorizes DOE 
to establish and amend test procedures for covered products (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)) and identifies kitchen ranges and ovens as a covered product. 
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) In a final rule published on September 8, 1998 
(63 FR 48038), DOE amended its regulations in certain places to replace 
the term ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' with ``cooking products.'' DOE 
regulations currently define ``cooking products'' as consumer products 
that are used as the major household cooking appliances. Cooking 
products are designed to cook or heat different types of food by one or 
more of the following sources of heat: gas, electricity, or microwave 
energy. Each product may consist of a horizontal cooking top containing 
one or more surface units and/or one or more heating compartments. 10 
CFR 430.2.
    Certain household cooking appliances combine a conventional cooking 
product component with other appliance functionality, which may or may 
not perform a cooking-related function. Examples of such ``combined 
cooking products'' include a conventional range, which combines a 
conventional cooking top and one or more conventional ovens; a 
microwave/conventional cooking top, which combines a microwave oven and 
a conventional cooking top; a microwave/conventional oven, which 
combines a microwave oven and a conventional oven; and a microwave/
conventional range, which combines a microwave oven and a conventional 
oven in separate compartments and a conventional cooking top. A 
combined cooking product that consists of multiple classes of cooking 
products is subject to multiple standards. Any established energy 
conservation standard applies to each individual component of such a 
combined cooking product. As determined in the December 2016 Final 
Rule, the cooking top test procedure applies to the individual 
conventional cooking top portion of a combined cooking product. See 81 
FR 91418, 91423.
    As discussed in the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE observed that for 
combined cooking products, the annual combined low-power mode energy 
consumption can be measured only for the combined cooking product, not 
for the individual components. 81 FR 91418, 91423. As discussed in 
section III.J.3 of this document, DOE is establishing similar methods 
to those adopted in the December 2016 Final Rule to calculate the 
integrated annual energy consumption of the conventional cooking top 
component separately. DOE's approach involves allocating a portion of 
the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for the 
combined cooking product to the conventional cooking top component 
using the estimated annual cooking hours for the given components of 
the combined cooking product.

C. Round Robin Test Results

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 51499]]

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

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

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

    \22\ See also the table of results for the 2021 Round Robin 
available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 51500]]

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

    \23\ Available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023/document, items number 19, 20, 21, and 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    \25\ www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.4_natural_gas_combustion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

[[Page 51501]]

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

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

1. Water-Heating Test Methodology
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to create a new appendix I1 
that would generally adopt the test procedure in IEC 60350-2:2017, 
which is an industry test procedure that measures the energy 
consumption of a cooking top using a water-heating method. 86 FR 60974, 
60979. In the IEC 60350-2:2017 test method (and the updated IEC 60350-
2:2021 test method), each heating element is tested individually by 
heating a specified water load in a standardized test vessel at the 
maximum power setting until the temperature of the water, including any 
overshoot after reducing the input power, reaches 90 [deg]C (i.e., the 
``heat-up period'').\27\ At that time, the power is reduced to a lower 
setting so that the water temperature remains as close to 90 [deg]C as 
possible, without dropping below that temperature threshold, for a 20-
minute period (i.e., the ``simmering period'').\28\ Energy consumption 
is measured over the entire duration of the initial heat-up period and 
20-minute simmering period, which together comprise the Energy Test 
Cycle for that heating element. The energy consumption for each heating 
element is normalized by the weight of the tested water load and 
averaged among all tested heating elements to obtain an average energy 
consumption value for the cooking top, as discussed in section III.J.1 
of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The approach DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR for new 
appendix I1, IEC 60350-2:2017 (on which the November 2021 NOPR was 
based), and IEC 60350-2:2021 (on which this final rule is based) are 
all similar to the approach used in the earlier DOE test procedure as 
established in the December 2016 Final Rule, which incorporated certain 
provisions from EN 60350-2:2013. Id. A more detailed comparison of IEC 
60350-2:2021, IEC 60350-2:2017 and EN 60350-2:2013 is provided in 
section III.D.2 of this document.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use a water-heating 
method, based primarily on IEC 60350-2:2017, to measure cooking top 
energy consumption, but with modifications to extend the test 
methodology to gas cooking tops and to reduce the variability of test 
results, as discussed in sections III.D.2.d through III.G of this 
document. 86 FR 60974, 60980.
    UL supported DOE's efforts to review and update the test procedure 
for cooking products and of DOE leveraging existing procedures such as 
IEC 60350-2:2017. (UL, No. 17 at p. 1)
    Samsung supported the proposed test procedure for cooking tops 
based on the IEC water-heating test methodology. (Samsung, No. 16 at p. 
2)
    AHAM generally agreed with DOE's proposed determination to rely on 
a water boiling test. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 3)
    For the reasons discussed in November 2021 NOPR, DOE is finalizing 
its proposal to use a water-heating method, based primarily on the most 
recent IEC test procedure, to measure cooking top energy consumption.
2. Differences Between IEC 60350-2:2021 and Previous Versions
    After the publication of the December 2016 Final Rule, which was 
based on EN 60350-2:2013, IEC issued IEC 60350-2:2017. In comparison to 
EN 60350-2:2013, IEC 60350-2:2017 included additional informative 
methodology for significantly reducing testing burden during the 
determination of the simmering setting.
    As mentioned previously, since the publication of the November 2021 
NOPR, IEC has issued an updated test standard, IEC 60350-2:2021. This 
updated version retains substantively the same provisions for the 
water-heating methodology evaluated in the November 2021 NOPR, except 
as addressed in the following sections.
    In this final rule, DOE incorporates certain provisions of IEC 
60350-2:2021 for measuring the energy consumption of cooking tops. DOE 
further adopts certain modifications and clarifications to the 
referenced sections of IEC 60350-2:2021, as discussed in sections 
III.D.2.d, 0, III.G, III.H, and III.I of this document.
a. Temperature-Averaging
    DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to add a definition of 
``smoothened water temperature'' to section 1 of new appendix I1, which 
would specify that the averaged values be rounded to the nearest 0.1 
[deg]C, in accordance with the resolution requirements of IEC 60350-
2:2017. 86 FR 60974, 60982. DOE also proposed to define smoothened 
water temperature as ``the 40-second moving-average temperature as 
calculated in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017, rounded to the 
nearest 0.1 degree Celsius.'' Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed definition of smoothened 
water temperature as well as its proposal to require the smoothened 
water temperature be rounded to the nearest 0.1 [deg]C. Id.
    The CA IOUs commented that using a 40-second moving average for 
determining temperatures is a key change proposed in the November 2021 
NOPR to increase repeatability of the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 14 
at pp. 1-2)
    NEEA agreed with implementing a 40-second moving average to 
smoothen the temperature curve, stating that this addresses natural 
temperature oscillation. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2)
    For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing a definition for 
smoothened water temperature consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, 
changing the referenced test procedure to IEC 60350-2:2021.
    In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE discussed that the water 
temperature may occasionally oscillate slightly above and below 90 
[deg]C due to minor fluctuations (i.e., ``noise'') in the temperature 
measurement. 81 FR 91418, 91430. As DOE further discussed in the 
November 2021 NOPR, these temperature oscillations may cause difficulty 
in determining when the 20-minute simmering period starts after the 
water temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C. 86 FR 60974, 60981. EN 
60350-2:2013 did not contain provisions that addressed temperature 
oscillations. In contrast, IEC 60350-2:2017 introduced (and IEC 60350-
2:2021 maintained) the use of ``smoothened'' temperature measurements 
to minimize the effect of minor temperature oscillations in determining 
the water temperature.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE evaluated the impact of implementing 
``smoothened'' water temperature averaging on two aspects of the test 
procedure: (1) validating that the water temperature at which the power 
setting is reduced during the simmering test \29\ (i.e., the ``turndown 
temperature'') \30\

[[Page 51502]]

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

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

    Regarding validation of the turndown temperature, Section 7.5.2.1 
of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 provides a methodology 
for conducting a preliminary test (the ``overshoot test'') to determine 
the water temperature at which the power setting will be reduced to the 
``simmering setting'' during the subsequent simmering test (i.e., the 
``target'' turndown temperature).\31\ Section 7.5.3 of both IEC 60350-
2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 specifies that while conducting the 
simmering test, the water temperature when the power setting is reduced 
(i.e., the ``measured'' turndown temperature) must be recorded. Section 
7.5.4.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 provides a 
methodology for validating that the measured turndown temperature was 
within a tolerance of +1 [deg]C/-0.5 [deg]C of the target turndown 
temperature. Section 7.5.4.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-
2:2021 requires that this validation be performed based on the 
smoothened water temperature (as described previously) rather than 
using the instantaneous measured water temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE presented test data suggesting that 
using the smoothened water temperature measurement, rather than the 
instantaneous water temperature measurement, to validate the measured 
turndown temperature could introduce unnecessary test burden. That test 
burden resulted from invalidating test cycles that otherwise would have 
been valid if the instantaneous water temperature measurement had been 
used instead (as was previously required by EN 60350-2:2013). 86 FR 
60974, 60981. The potential for this to occur is highest for cooking 
top types that have particularly fast water temperature response times 
to changes in input power; e.g., electric-smooth radiant and induction 
types. Id. On such products, the rate at which the water temperature 
rises begins to quickly decrease (i.e., the temperature rise 
``flattens'' out) within a few seconds after the power setting is 
turned down to the simmering setting. Id. For such products, the 
smoothened turndown temperature can be a few degrees lower than the 
instantaneous turndown temperature because the smoothened water 
temperature calculation incorporates 20 seconds of forward-looking data 
into the average, during which time the temperature curve is flattening 
out. Id. This can result in a measured turndown temperature that is 
within the allowable tolerance of the target turndown temperature based 
on the instantaneous water temperature, but below the allowable 
tolerance when determined based on the smoothened average method (and 
thus invalid according to Section 7.5.4.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and 
IEC 60350-2:2021). Id. On such products, using the instantaneous water 
temperature, rather than the smoothened water temperature, would 
provide a more accurate and representative validation that the measured 
turndown temperature was within the specified tolerance of the target 
turndown temperature. Id.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the 
requirement in IEC 60350-2:2017 \32\ to use the smoothened water 
temperature measurement, rather than the instantaneous water 
temperature measurement, to validate the measured turndown temperature 
may be unduly burdensome, particularly for electric-smooth radiant and 
induction cooking tops. Id. at 86 FR 60982. Therefore, in the November 
2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that new appendix I1 require using the 
instantaneous water temperature measurement (rather than the smoothened 
water temperature measurement) to validate that the measured turndown 
temperature was within +1 [deg]C/-0.5 [deg]C of the target turndown 
temperature. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    For the reasons discussed, DOE determines that the provision to use 
the smoothened water temperature measurement to validate the measured 
turndown temperature may be unduly burdensome, particularly for 
electric-smooth radiant and induction cooking tops. Therefore, DOE 
finalizes its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to 
require that the instantaneous turndown temperature be within +1 
[deg]C/-0.5 [deg]C of the target turndown temperature.
    Regarding the determination of the start of the 20-minute simmering 
period,\34\ in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE analyzed approaches for 
determining the start of the simmering period that account for water 
temperature fluctuations. 86 FR 60974, 60982. Section 7.5.3 of both IEC 
60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 specifies that the start of the 20-
minute simmering period is when the water temperature first meets or 
exceeds 90 [deg]C. By contrast, the version of appendix I as finalized 
in the December 2016 Final Rule, which used instantaneous water 
temperatures, allowed for a brief ``grace period'' after the water 
temperature initially reached 90 [deg]C. In that grace period, 
temperature fluctuations below 90 [deg]C for up to 20 seconds were 
permitted without changing the determination of whether the power 
setting under test met the requirements for a simmering setting. As 
part of the November 2021 NOPR analysis, DOE analyzed test data from 
the 2020 Round Robin. DOE observed that for each simmering setting 
under test, the smoothened water temperature did not drop below 90 
[deg]C after the initial time it reached that temperature. In other 
words, when using the smoothened water temperature approach described 
in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017, none of the test cycles that 
had required a ``grace period'' when evaluated according to the test 
procedure finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule had smoothened 
water temperatures below 90 [deg]C after the start of the simmering 
period. Id. Accordingly, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to 
determine the start of the simmering period as defined in Sections 
7.5.3 and 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017, using the smoothened water 
temperature and without any ``grace period.'' Id. DOE tentatively 
concluded in the November 2021 NOPR that a grace period is unnecessary 
when relying on smoothened water temperature. DOE also tentatively 
concluded such a provision could cause confusion regarding the start 
time of the 20-minute simmering period, which in turn could reduce 
repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 51503]]

    DOE requested comment on its proposal to include the requirement to 
evaluate the start of the simmering period as the time that the 40-
second ``smoothened'' average water temperature first meets or exceeds 
90 [deg]C. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this 
proposal.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE is finalizing, consistent with the 
November 2021 NOPR, the requirement to evaluate the start of the 
simmering period as the time that the 40-second ``smoothened'' average 
water temperature first meets or exceeds 90 [deg]C.
b. Water Hardness
    Section 7.1.Z6.1 of EN 60350-2:2013, and Section 7.6 of both IEC 
60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021, specify that the test water shall be 
potable. Section 7.5.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 
further state that distilled water may be used to avoid lime sediment. 
DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that the use of 
distilled water would not significantly affect the energy use of the 
cooking top in comparison to test results that would be obtained using 
water with a hardness within potable limits.\35\ 86 FR 60974, 60982. 
This was based on DOE's 2020 Round Robin test results that showed high 
reproducibility among the test laboratories with different water 
supplies that were not subject to specific tolerances on water 
hardness. Id. DOE also tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR 
that a reduction in lime sediment could extend the lifetime of the test 
vessels. Id. Therefore, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to allow 
the use of distilled water in new appendix I1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') 
does not regulate the water hardness of drinking water, EPA has 
established non-mandatory Secondary Drinking Water Standards that 
provide limits on contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such 
as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, 
odor, or color) in drinking water. These secondary standards specify 
a maximum limit of 500 milligrams/liter of total dissolved solids. 
The table of secondary standards is available at: www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals#table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requested comment on its proposal to allow the use of distilled 
water for testing in the new appendix I1. Id. DOE did not receive any 
comments regarding this proposal.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE determines that the use of distilled 
water would not significantly affect the measured energy use of a 
cooking top in comparison to test results that would be obtained using 
water with a hardness within potable limits. DOE therefore finalizes 
its proposal, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, to allow the use 
of distilled water for testing in new appendix I1.
c. Cooking Top Preparation
    Section 7.1.Z6.1 of EN 60350-2:2013 specifies that before the 
energy consumption measurement is conducted, the cooking top must be 
operated for at least 10 minutes to ensure that residual water in the 
components is vaporized. (Residual water may accumulate in the 
components during the manufacturing process, shipping, or storage of a 
unit.) In the past, DOE received questions from test laboratories on 
how frequently this cooking top pre-test preparation should be 
conducted. 86 FR 60974, 60982. Section 7.5.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 
and IEC 60350-2:2021 include a similar requirement and clarify that 
this vaporization process need only be run once per tested unit. In the 
November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that the vaporization 
process need only be run once per tested unit by adopting the provision 
in IEC 60350-2:2017 in new appendix I1. This was based on DOE's 
preliminary determination that conducting the vaporization process once 
would be sufficient to eliminate residual water. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to include the cooking top 
preparation requirements for water vaporization from IEC 60350-2:2017 
\36\ in its new appendix I1. Id. DOE did not receive any comments 
regarding this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the reasons discussed, DOE has determined that conducting the 
vaporization process once is sufficient to eliminate residual water. 
Therefore, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is including the 
cooking top preparation requirements for water vaporization in new 
appendix I1, changing the referenced test procedure to IEC 60350-
2:2021.
d. Optional Potential Simmering Setting Pre-Selection Test
    As discussed, DOE is adopting the water-heating methodology in IEC 
60350-2:2021. This method requires the evaluation of an Energy Test 
Cycle, which consists of measuring energy consumption during an initial 
heat-up period and a subsequent 20-minute simmering period. Conducting 
the IEC 60350-2:2021 test method requires determining the simmering 
setting through repeated test cycles, each with a successively higher 
input power setting after turndown, starting with the lowest input 
setting. This methodology can require a laboratory to conduct numerous 
test cycles before identifying the one in which the simmering period 
criteria are met.
    A draft version of IEC 60350-2:2021 included a new Annex H (``draft 
Annex H''), which provided an informative and optional test method for 
determining the potential simmering setting (i.e., the first setting 
used to conduct a simmering test in order to determine the simmering 
setting). Draft Annex H, available at the time of the November 2021 
NOPR, stated that, for electric cooking tops, empirical test data show 
that the power density of the minimum-above-threshold power setting 
(i.e., simmering setting) is close to 0.8 watts per square centimeter 
(``W/cm\2\'').\37\ The method in draft Annex H provided a means to 
determine which power setting is closest to the target power density, 
and thus to more easily identify the first power setting that may be 
used for determining which power setting will be used for the Energy 
Test Cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

[[Page 51504]]

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

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

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

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

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

1. Test Vessel Selection for Electric Cooking Tops
    Section 5.6.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 
specifies a set of standardized cylindrical test vessels and respective 
lids of varying diameters, measured in millimeters (``mm''), that must 
be used for conducting the cooking top energy consumption tests. Table 
3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 
defines four ``standardized cookware categories'' \41\ that are used to 
group test vessels by diameter range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The four categories are defined as A, B, C, and D. The 
vessel diameters associated with each category are as follows: 
Category A: 120 mm and 150 mm; Category B: 180 mm; Category C: 210 
mm and 240 mm; and Category D: 270 mm, 300 mm, and 330 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 6.3 and 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 
specify a procedure to select the set of test vessels necessary to test 
an electric cooking top, based on if a cooking zone \42\ or a cooking 
area \43\ is being tested. The process requires determining the number 
of cooking zones based on the number of controls that can be operated 
independently at the same time. For cooking zones, a tester selects the 
test vessel based on the cooking zone dimension. To find the cooking 
zone dimension, the tester measures the marked area on the surface of 
the cooking top, irrespective of the size of the heating element. For 
circular cooking zones, the outermost diameter is used; for non-
circular cooking zones, the shorter side or the minor axis is used. The 
tester then matches the cooking zone dimension to the outer diameter of 
a corresponding test vessel, using Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of both 
IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021, and makes an initial selection 
of the corresponding test vessel. For cooking areas, Annex A of both 
IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 defines the set of test vessels 
to use for testing all of the cooking zones on the cooking top, based 
on the number of cooking zones (i.e., the number of independent 
controls) within the cooking area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    There are additional requirements for selecting the set of test 
vessels used for testing a cooking top. Both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 
60350-2:2021 specify in Table 4 of Section 7.3 that for electric 
cooking tops with four or more controls, the set of test vessels used 
to test the cooking top must comprise at least three of the 
standardized cookware categories. If the initially selected test vessel 
set does not meet this criterion, a

[[Page 51505]]

substitution must be made using the next best-fitting test vessel from 
one of the other standardized cookware categories. If a selected test 
vessel size is out of the range of the sizes allowed by the user 
manual, the closest compatible diameter is to be used.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined through a 
market survey of electric cooking tops that the typical difference in 
diameter between the initial test vessel selection and the substituted 
test vessel is less than 30 mm. This suggests that the energy 
consumption will not substantially differ compared to using the test 
vessel whose diameter is closest to the heating element diameter. In 
addition, any corresponding difference in measured energy consumption 
for the entire cooking top will be even more minimal. 86 FR 60974, 
60983. Through testing conducted in support of the December 2016 Final 
Rule, DOE also observed that in some tests, electric cooking tops were 
tested with the wrong set of test vessels. Id. DOE attributes this to 
the complex test vessel selection process.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require much simpler 
test vessel selection criteria for new appendix I1 to reduce the burden 
of implementing the test vessel selection procedure and thereby improve 
test procedure reproducibility. Id. Specifically, DOE proposed to 
require that for electric cooking tops with limitative markings, each 
cooking zone be tested with the test vessel that most closely matches 
the outer diameter of the marking, from among the test vessels defined 
in Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC 60350-2:2017. Id. For electric 
cooking tops without limitative markings, DOE proposed to use Table A.1 
in Annex A of IEC 60350-2:2017 to determine the set of test vessels 
required, because without those markings, it is not possible to match 
the test vessel diameter to the marking's diameter. Id. DOE also 
proposed to exclude the provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017 
in new appendix I1 to ensure that these approaches are properly 
implemented. Id. If a selected test vessel cannot be centered on the 
cooking zone due to interference with a structural component of the 
cooking top (for example, a raised outer border), DOE proposed to 
require using the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be 
centered on the cooking zone. Id. This process of vessel selection 
would reflect the expected consumer practice of matching cookware to 
the size of a heating element (i.e., cookware is placed on the heating 
element that is the closest in size to the cookware). Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to update the test vessel 
selection procedure. Again, for electric cooking tops with limitative 
markings, the proposal excludes the provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC 
60350-2:2017 and instead requires that each cooking zone be tested with 
the test vessel that most closely matches the outer diameter of the 
marking. For electric cooking tops without limitative markings, DOE 
proposed that Table A.1 of Annex A of IEC 60350-2:2017 be used to 
define the test vessels. Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal 
for when a structural component of the cooking top interferes with the 
test vessel to substitute the largest test vessel that can be centered 
on the cooking zone. Id.
    NYSERDA supported DOE's effort to simplify the test vessel 
selection process to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. 
(NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
    The Joint Commenters agreed with the proposed test vessels and test 
vessel selection method for electric cooking tops. (Joint Commenters, 
No. 11 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters asserted that DOE's proposal to 
exclude the provisions from Section 7.3 of IEC 60350-2:2017 and to 
simplify the test vessel selection criteria for electric cooking tops 
are reasonable methods for selecting test vessels. (Id.) The Joint 
Commenters stated that these proposals would improve reproducibility 
while simplifying the test vessel selection process for manufacturers. 
(Id.) The Joint Commenters encouraged DOE to investigate methods for 
testing non-circular cooking zones to fully encapsulate the energy 
consumption of all cooking zones in the test procedure.\44\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

[[Page 51506]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Temperature Specifications
a. Room Temperature
    Section 5.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 specifies 
an ambient room temperature of 23  2 [deg]C for testing. 
DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it was aware that conducting 
energy testing on cooking tops in the same conditioned space that 
safety testing is conducted could significantly reduce testing burden, 
based on discussions with cooking top manufacturers as part of the Task 
Force. 86 FR 60974, 60983. Section 40 of UL 858, a relevant safety 
standard for cooking tops, requires a room temperature of 25  5 [deg]C for certain safety testing that manufacturers are 
likely conducting.
    The IEC ambient room temperature specifications (23  2 
[deg]C) are within the range allowed by UL 858 (25  5 
[deg]C). DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it did not expect 
that the slightly different nominal value and larger tolerance on the 
ambient room temperature (corresponding to the range allowed by UL 858) 
would significantly impact the measured cooking top energy consumption. 
Id. This was based on DOE's understanding of the primary heat transfer 
mechanisms to the water load. Those mechanisms are conduction to the 
test vessel for electric-coil cooking tops; radiation for electric-
smooth cooking tops other than induction type; joule heating in the 
test vessel itself by induced eddy currents for electric-smooth 
induction cooking tops; and convective heat transfer from the flames 
and conduction from the grates for gas cooking tops. DOE tentatively 
determined in the November 2021 NOPR that expanding the ambient 
temperature tolerance to match that used for safety testing (i.e., 25 
 5 [deg]C) would be warranted and would not impact 
repeatability or reproducibility of the test procedure, due to this 
relatively minimal impact on testing results and the potential for 
significant reduction in test burden on manufacturers. Id. 
Manufacturers in the Task Force raised concerns that test laboratories 
could consistently test at the extremes of the temperature tolerances. 
To address those concerns, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to 
specify that the target ambient room temperature is the nominal 
midpoint of the temperature range. Id. DOE proposed to specify in new 
appendix I1 an ambient room temperature of 25  5 [deg]C, 
with a target temperature of 25 [deg]C. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to specify an ambient room 
temperature of 25  5 [deg]C. Id.
    The Joint Commenters supported a target ambient room temperature 
specification of 25 [deg]C, but expressed concern that it may not 
prevent test laboratories from testing at extremes of the 5 
[deg]C tolerance, which they stated could potentially affect 
reproducibility. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2) The Joint 
Commenters encouraged DOE to consider providing instructions on how to 
best reach the target temperature or more specificity around what it 
means to target the midpoint of the temperature range. (Id.)
    NEEA commented that DOE should set a more rigorous ambient 
temperature specification during the active mode test, stating that an 
ambient temperature specification of 25  5 [deg]C is too 
wide to ensure repeatability. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 1) NEEA commented 
that specifying a target ambient temperature of 25 [deg]C may not 
prevent tests from being conducted at the extremes of that range, and 
that it is unclear whether the differences in applying the current 
methodology at 20 [deg]C and 30 [deg]C are insignificant. (Id.) 
According to NEEA, an ambient

[[Page 51507]]

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

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

    DOE requested comments on its proposal to require that the product 
temperature be stable, its proposed definition of a stable temperature, 
and its proposed methods for measuring the product temperature for 
active mode testing as well as standby mode and off mode power testing. 
Id.
    The CA IOUs commented that specifying the initial starting 
temperature of the cooking zone is a key change that would increase 
repeatability of the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 1-2)
    The Joint Commenters supported DOE's proposal to require that the 
product temperature not vary by more than 1 [deg]C over a 5-minute 
period. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2)
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal to require 
that the product temperature be stable, its proposed definition of a 
stable temperature, and its proposed methods for measuring the product 
temperature for active mode testing as well as standby mode and off 
mode power testing.
c. Initial Water Temperature
    Section 7.5.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 
specifies an initial water temperature of 15  0.5 [deg]C, 
and that the test vessel must not be stored in a refrigerator to avoid 
the rims getting ``too cold.'' As part of conversations within the Task 
Force in which DOE has participated, manufacturers expressed concerns 
regarding the test burden of maintaining a supply of water for test 
loads that is colder than the ambient temperature, especially when the 
test vessels cannot be placed in a refrigerator before testing. 86 FR 
60974, 60984.
    As discussed, DOE is specifying an ambient room temperature of 25 
 5 [deg]C. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it 
expects that using an initial nominal water temperature of 25 [deg]C, 
rather than the IEC-specified 15 [deg]C, would not impact the 
repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id. 
Furthermore, DOE stated that it expects that an initial nominal water 
temperature of 25 [deg]C may more accurately represent an average 
temperature of food or water loads with which consumers would fill 
their cookware before starting to cook. Id. DOE surmised that consumers 
would be expected to fill cookware not only with refrigerated foods or 
water from the cold water supply (i.e., food and water loads at 15 
[deg]C or lower), but also with water from the hot water supply and 
food items at room temperature (i.e., food and water loads at 25 [deg]C 
or higher). Id.
    DOE also tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that, 
although a different initial nominal water temperature would be 
appropriate, it is critical to maintain the tolerance of  
0.5 [deg]C on the initial water temperature as specified by IEC 60350-
2:2017 so that the energy consumption during the initial heat-up phase 
to 90 [deg]C is repeatable and reproducible. Id.
    In summary, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in 
new appendix I1 that the water must have an initial temperature of 25 
 0.5 [deg]C. Id. DOE requested comment on this proposal. 
Id.
    The CA IOUs and Joint Comments supported the proposed initial water 
temperature specifications to minimize variability when testing. (CA 
IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 1-2; Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 2)
    AHAM commented that it tentatively believes that the proposed 
initial water temperature of 25  0.5 [deg]C tolerance is 
too small and creates excessive test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12) 
AHAM is collecting data on potentially expanding the water temperature 
tolerance to 1 [deg]C, and stated that DOE should consider 
its results before publishing a final rule. (Id.) AHAM asserted that it 
is not feasible for a tester

[[Page 51508]]

to maintain the proposed tolerance, as water temperature can rise above 
the tolerance between the time when the water is brought to the 
appliance and when the test is started. (Id.)
    While DOE has not yet received any data from AHAM on this issue, 
DOE encourages AHAM to send any data when it becomes available. DOE 
notes that the 2021 Round Robin, which DOE has concluded resulted in 
repeatable and reproducible results, used a 0.5 [deg]C 
tolerance on the initial water temperature, as proposed in the November 
2021 NOPR. DOE is not aware of any of the test laboratories that 
participated in the 2021 Round Robin having had any difficulty 
maintaining the  0.5 [deg]C tolerance on the initial water 
temperature. In DOE's experience, the alignment of the nominal ambient 
temperature and of the nominal initial water temperature at 25 [deg]C, 
has reduced the burden associated with the 0.5 [deg]C 
tolerance on the initial water temperature, as compared to the 
specification in both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021. For 
example, in DOE's experience, if the ambient temperature is maintained 
at the nominal value of 25 [deg]C and the test vessel is kept in the 
test room and not placed on a cooking zone that is turned on, the water 
in the test vessel will remain within the required 25  0.5 
[deg]C for 10-30 minutes. For these reasons, DOE determines that 
maintaining a tolerance of 0.5 [deg]C on the initial water 
temperature is not unduly burdensome.
    Furthermore, DOE confirms its tentative determination from the 
November 2021 NOPR that it is critical to maintain the tolerance of 
 0.5 [deg]C on the initial water temperature as specified 
by IEC 60350-2:2017 so that the energy consumption during the initial 
heat-up phase to 90 [deg]C is repeatable and reproducible. DOE also 
confirms its tentative determination from the November 2021 NOPR that 
it would not be feasible to normalize the measured energy consumption 
to reflect different starting water temperatures due to the non-
linearity of the water temperature curve during the initial portion of 
the test. A wider initial water temperature tolerance of 1 
[deg]C, as suggested by AHAM, would reduce the repeatability and 
reproducibility of the test procedure and would seemingly contradict 
AHAM's comment that DOE's efforts to reduce variation have not reduced 
variation enough for certain parts of the test procedure (see section 
III.C of this document).
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal from the 
November 2021 NOPR to specify an initial water temperature of 25  0.5 [deg]C.
3. Determination of the Simmering Setting
    IEC 60350-2:2021 adds a clause to Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-
2:2017 stating that if the smoothened water temperature is below 90 
[deg]C during the simmering period, the energy consumption measurement 
shall be repeated with an increased power setting. The new clause also 
adds that if the smoothened water temperature is above 91 [deg]C during 
the simmering period, the test cycle is repeated using the next lower 
power setting and checked to ensure that the lowest possible power 
setting that remains above 90 [deg]C is identified for the Energy Test 
Cycle. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it infers from this 
new clause that if the smoothened water temperature does not drop below 
90 [deg]C or rise above 91 [deg]C during the simmering period, no 
additional testing is needed. 86 FR 60974, 60985. This new clause 
provides clarity as to what setting is ``as close to 90 [deg]C as 
possible,'' as required in Section 7.5.2.2 of IEC 60350-2:2017, and 
therefore improves the reproducibility of the simmering setting 
determination.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed two power setting 
definitions. First, the ``maximum-below-threshold power setting'' would 
be ``the power setting on a conventional cooking top that is the 
highest power setting that results in smoothened water temperature data 
that does not meet the evaluation criteria specified in Section 7.5.4.1 
of IEC 60350-2:2017.'' Second, the ``minimum-above-threshold power 
setting'' would be ``the power setting on a conventional cooking top 
that is the lowest power setting that results in smoothened water 
temperature data that meet the evaluation criteria specified in Section 
7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2:2017. This power setting is also referred to as 
the simmering setting.'' Id.
    DOE also proposed to include a flow chart (see Figure III.1) in new 
appendix I1 that would require identifying the maximum-below-threshold 
power setting and the minimum-above-threshold power setting (or the 
simmering setting) from any valid \50\ simmering test conducted 
according to Section 7.5.2 of IEC 60350-2:2017, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (1) If the smoothened temperature does not exceed 91 [deg]C or drop 
below 90 [deg]C at any time in the 20-minute period following 
t90,\51\ the power setting under test is considered to be 
the simmering setting, and no further evaluation or testing is 
required. The test is considered the Energy Test Cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE defined t90 in 
this context as the start of the simmering period and as the time at 
which the smoothened water temperature first meets or exceeds 90 
[deg]C. Id. at 86 FR 60986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If the smoothened temperature exceeds 91 [deg]C and does not 
drop below 90 [deg]C at any time in the 20-minute period following 
t90, the power setting under test is considered to be above 
the threshold power setting. The simmering test is repeated using the 
next lower power setting, after allowing the product temperature to 
return to ambient conditions, until two consecutive power settings have 
been determined to be above the threshold power setting and below the 
threshold power setting, respectively. These power settings are 
considered to be the minimum-above-threshold power setting and the 
maximum-below-threshold power setting, respectively. The energy 
consumption representative of an Energy Test Cycle is calculated based 
on an interpolation of the energy use of both of these cycles, as 
discussed in section III.E.4 of this document.
    (3) If the smoothened temperature drops below 90 [deg]C at any time 
in the 20-minute period following t90, the power setting 
under test is considered to be below the threshold power setting. The 
simmering test is repeated using the next higher power setting, after 
allowing the product temperature to return to ambient conditions, until 
two consecutive power settings have been determined to be above the 
threshold power setting and below the threshold power setting, 
respectively. These power settings are considered to be the minimum-
above-threshold power setting and the maximum-below-threshold power 
setting, respectively. The energy consumption representative of an 
Energy Test Cycle is calculated based on an interpolation of the energy 
use of both of these cycles, as discussed in section III.E.4 of this 
document. 86 FR 60974, 60985-60986.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 51509]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.000

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

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

    To provide additional clarity to the test procedure, in this final 
rule DOE is moving the definitions of certain terms from section 3 of 
appendix I1 (as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR) to section 1 of 
appendix I1. These terms include: the turndown temperature (Tc), the 
target turndown temperature (Tctarget), the simmering 
period, and the time t90 (the start of the simmering 
period).\53\ In appendix I1, DOE is defining the time t90 as 
``the first instant during the simmering test for each cooking zone 
where the smoothened water temperature is greater than or equal to 90 
[deg]C,'' consistent with the definition in section 3.3.1.3.3.4, as 
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. In appendix I1, DOE is also 
defining the simmering period for each cooking zone as ``the 20-minute 
period during the simmering test starting at time t90,'' 
consistent with the definition in section 3.3.1.3.3.5, as proposed in 
the November 2021 NOPR. DOE is also simplifying the language of 
sections 3.1.4.5, 3.3.1.3.3, 3.3.1.3.3.3, 3.3.1.3.3.4, and 3.3.1.3.3.5 
of appendix I1, to reflect the inclusion of these definitions in 
section 1 of appendix I1, by removing redundant phrases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See section III.G.5 of this document for the definitions of 
the turndown temperature (Tc) and the target turndown 
temperature (Tctarget).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 51510]]

in Figure 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 also uses streamlined language to 
reflect the new definition of simmering period and of turndown 
temperature, and to use more direct questions. For example, the text 
``Does the smoothened water temperature drop below 90 [deg]C at any 
time in the 20-minute period following t90 (as defined in 
section 3.3.1.3.3.4 of this appendix)?'' is replaced with simpler text 
that conveys the same question using the wording ``Is the smoothened 
water temperature <= 90 [deg]C at any time during the simmering 
period?''
4. Normalizing Per-Cycle Energy Use for the Final Water Temperature
    As discussed in section III.E.3 of this document, the test conduct 
can conclude with either one or two cycles. A single Energy Test Cycle 
in which the smoothened water temperature during the simmering period 
remains between 90 [deg]C and 91 [deg]C is one possibility. Otherwise, 
a pair of cycles designated as the minimum-above-threshold cycle and 
the maximum-below-threshold cycle is identified. In the minimum-above-
threshold cycle, as defined above, the smoothened water temperature 
remains at or above 90 [deg]C for the entire 20-minute simmering 
period, and the smoothened water temperature exceeds 91 [deg]C for at 
least one second of the simmering period. Conversely, in the maximum-
below-threshold cycle, as defined above, the smoothened water 
temperature does not remain at or above 90 [deg]C during the entire 20-
minute simmering period, and the smoothened water temperature drops 
below 90 [deg]C for at least one second of the simmering period. In 
both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021, the energy use of a cooking 
zone is calculated based on such a minimum-above-threshold cycle, 
regardless of the amount by which the smoothened water temperature 
exceeds 90 [deg]C during the simmering period.
    In conversations as part of the Task Force in which DOE has 
participated, some manufacturers expressed concerns that a test cycle 
with a water temperature at the end of the simmering period (i.e., a 
``final water temperature'') that is above 91 [deg]C may not be 
comparable to a test cycle with a final water temperature that is 
closer to 90 [deg]C. The higher the final temperatures, the greater the 
risk; there is no limit on how far above 91 [deg]C the final water 
temperature may be (as long as the setting is the minimum-above-
threshold cycle). 86 FR 60974, 60986. In addition, this concern is 
particularly relevant to cooking tops with a small number of discrete 
power settings that result in relatively large differences in final 
water temperature between each setting. Id. In addition, for cooking 
tops with continuous (i.e., infinite) power settings, repeatably 
identifying the minimum-above-threshold cycle is particularly 
challenging.\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    To reduce test burden for cooking tops with infinite power 
settings, and to provide comparable energy use for all cooking tops 
including those with discrete power settings, in the November 2021 
NOPR, DOE proposed to normalize the energy use of the minimum-above-
threshold cycle to represent an Energy Test Cycle with a final water 
temperature of exactly 90 [deg]C. DOE proposed using an interpolation 
of the energy use of the maximum-below-threshold cycle and the 
respective final smoothened water temperatures. Id. For test cycles for 
which the smoothened water temperature during the simmering period does 
not exceed 91 [deg]C, DOE also proposed not to perform this 
normalization for two reasons. First, IEC 60350-2:2017 does not require 
the next lowest power setting to be tested under these circumstances. 
Second, DOE had tentatively determined the extra test burden would not 
be warranted by the resulting small adjustment to the energy use. Id.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE further posited that the 
normalization calculation would not be possible under two scenarios. 
One scenario is the minimum-above-threshold power setting is the lowest 
available power setting on the cooking zone under test. A second is the 
smoothened water temperature during the maximum-below-threshold power 
setting does not meet or exceed 90 [deg]C during a 20-minute period 
following the time the power setting is reduced. Id. Under either of 
these circumstances, DOE proposed that the minimum-above-threshold 
power setting test be the Energy Test Cycle. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to normalize the energy use 
of the tested cycle if the smoothened water temperature exceeds 91 
[deg]C during the simmering period, to represent an Energy Test Cycle 
with a final water temperature of 90 [deg]C. Id. DOE specifically 
requested comment on its proposal to use the smoothened final water 
temperature to perform this normalization and on whether a different 
normalization method would be more appropriate. Id. DOE also requested 
comment on its proposal not to require the normalization under any of 
three circumstances: when the smoothened water temperature remains 
between 90 [deg]C and 91 [deg]C during the simmering period, when the 
minimum-above-threshold power setting is the lowest available power 
setting on the cooking zone under test, or when the smoothened water 
temperature during the maximum-below-threshold power setting does not 
meet or exceed 90 [deg]C during a 20-minute period following the time 
the power setting is reduced. Id.
    NEEA supported normalizing the calculated energy of the Energy Test 
Cycle to maintain comparable temperatures. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2)
    The CA IOUs commented that the normalizing methodology would 
increase repeatability of the simmering test. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 
1-2) The CA IOUs commented that it appears that one pathway \55\ on the 
flow chart in proposed Figure 3.1.4.5 does not align with the 
requirement for a simmering test to maintain a temperature between 90 
and 91 [deg]C throughout the simmering test, or, if that is not 
possible, for the two dial/knob positions that bound \56\ this 
temperature condition to be tested. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 8) The CA 
IOUs recommended that the flow chart be fixed to match the verbiage 
within the test methodology. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The pathway highlighted visually by the CA IOUs as part of 
this comment is the pathway wherein the smoothened water temperature 
during the maximum-below-threshold power setting does not meet or 
exceed 90 [deg]C during a 20-minute period following the time the 
power setting is reduced.
    \56\ The CA IOUs' comment used the word ``bind.'' DOE 
understands the CA IOUs' comment to have meant to use the word 
``bound'' instead of ``bind.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 51511]]

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

F. Extension of Methodology to Gas Cooking Tops

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

[[Page 51512]]

tolerances, DOE regulations instead specify methods for statistically 
evaluating a sample plan to ensure that products meet the relevant 
standard. Any represented value of a basic model for which consumers 
would favor lower values (such as annual energy use) must be greater 
than or equal to the higher of the mean of the sample or the upper 97.5 
percent confidence limit of the true mean divided by 1.05 (see section 
III.L.1 of this document).
    In response to AHAM's comments, DOE has acknowledged the need to 
include unique provisions in the test procedure to account for whether 
the unit being tested is a gas or electric cooking top. Notably, DOE 
has specified a procedure for adjusting the burner heat input rate for 
gas cooking tops, as discussed in section III.F.4 of this document. As 
illustrated by the 2021 Round Robin test results, these specifications 
have resulted in a cooking top test procedure that has significantly 
reduced variability as compared to the test procedure finalized in the 
December 2016 Final Rule. DOE also notes that units used in the round 
robin testing were not intended to be reflective of any particular 
shipment or sales distribution except to the extent that a broad range 
of manufacturers were represented. DOE will address the market 
distribution of cooking top efficiencies as part of its ongoing energy 
conservation standards analysis.
1. Gas Test Conditions
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the supply pressure 
immediately ahead of all controls of the gas cooking top under test 
must be between 7 and 10 inches of water column for testing with 
natural gas, and between 11 and 13 inches of water column for testing 
with propane. 86 FR 60974, 60987. DOE further proposed that the higher 
heating value of natural gas be approximately 1,025 Btu per standard 
cubic foot, and that the higher heating value of propane be 
approximately 2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot. Id. These values are 
consistent with industry standards, and other DOE test procedures for 
gas-fired appliances.
    DOE also proposed to define a standard cubic foot of gas as ``the 
quantity of gas that occupies 1 cubic foot when saturated with water 
vapor at a temperature of 60 [deg]F and a pressure of 14.73 pounds per 
square inch (101.6 kPa).'' Id. Standard cubic feet are used to measure 
the energy use of a gas appliance in a repeatable manner by correcting 
for potential variation in the gas line conditions.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed test conditions for gas 
cooking tops, and its proposed definition of a standard cubic foot of 
gas. Id.
    AHAM agreed with the proposed natural gas and propane heating value 
definitions. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12)
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the 
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed test conditions for gas cooking tops, 
and its proposed definition of a standard cubic foot of gas.
2. Gas Supply Instrumentation
a. Gas Meter
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in new appendix 
I1 a gas meter for testing gas cooking tops. The proposal was identical 
to the provision in the version of appendix I as finalized in the 
December 2016 Final Rule. That provision read as follows: the gas meter 
used for measuring gas consumption must have a resolution of 0.01 cubic 
foot or less and a maximum error no greater than 1 percent of the 
measured valued for any demand greater than 2.2 cubic feet per hour. 86 
FR 60974, 60987.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed instrumentation 
specifications for gas cooking tops, including the gas meter, and any 
cost burden for manufacturers who may not already have the required 
instrumentation. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed 
specifications for the gas meter used in new appendix I1.
    For the reasons presented in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE finalizes 
its proposed specifications for the gas meter used in new appendix I1.
b. Correction Factor
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include in section 
4.1.1.2.1 of new appendix I1 the formula for the correction factor to 
standard temperature and pressure conditions. This was a change from 
the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, 
which referenced the U.S. Bureau of Standards Circular C417, 1938, 
(``C417''). 86 FR 60974, 60987. DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR 
that by providing this explicit formula, it expects to reduce the 
potential for confusion or miscalculations. Id.
    Measuring the gas temperature and line pressure \57\ are required 
to calculate the correction factor to standard temperature and pressure 
conditions. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify the 
instrumentation to do so. Id. DOE proposed to require that the 
instrument for measuring the gas line temperature have a maximum error 
no greater than 2 [deg]F over the operating range and that 
the instrument for measuring the gas line pressure have a maximum error 
no greater than 0.1 inches of water column. Id. These requirements are 
consistent with the gas temperature and line pressure requirements from 
the test procedures at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices N and E, 
for gas-fired furnaces and for gas-fired water heaters, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 51513]]

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

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

    DOE is also updating the units for gas temperature used in the 
correction factor formula to be measured in [deg]F or [deg]C, rather 
than degrees Rankine or Kelvin. To accommodate this change, DOE is 
including an adder, Tk, to the correction factor formula for 
converting the gas temperature from [deg]F to Rankine or [deg]C to 
Kelvin, as applicable.
    In summary, DOE believes these changes to the units of measurement 
better align with the units of measurement most commonly used by test 
laboratories.
c. Gas Calorimeter
    The version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final 
Rule required that the heating value be measured with an unspecified 
instrument with a maximum error of 0.5 percent of the measured value 
and a resolution of 0.2 percent of the full-scale reading. The heating 
value was then required to be corrected to standard temperature and 
pressure. 81 FR 91418, 91440.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to require the use of a 
standard continuous flow calorimeter to measure the higher heating 
value of the gas. DOE proposed four requirements: an operating range of 
750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic foot, a maximum error no greater than 0.2 
percent of the actual heating value of the gas used in the test, an 
indicator readout maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the 
measured value within the operating range, and a resolution of 0.2 
percent of the full-scale reading of the indicator instrument. 86 FR 
60974, 60987. These requirements are consistent with the calorimeter 
requirements from the test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix D2, for gas clothes dryers.
    As discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed a different 
approach for determining the heating value because, after discussions 
with test laboratories and manufacturers, applying the gas correction 
factor to the heating value does not reflect common practice in the 
industry. 86 FR 60974, 60987. Instead, DOE proposed to calculate gas 
energy use as the product of three factors: the measured gas volume 
consumed (in cubic feet), a correction factor converting measured cubic 
feet of gas to standard cubic feet of gas as discussed previously, and 
the heating value of the gas (in Btu per standard cubic foot) in new 
appendix I1. Id. DOE proposed to specify further that the heating value 
would be the higher heating value on a dry-basis of gas. Id. In the 
November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it is DOE's understanding that this 
is the typical heating value used by the industry and third-party test 
laboratories. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed instrumentation 
specifications for gas cooking tops, including the gas calorimeter, and 
any cost burden for manufacturers who may not already have the required 
instrumentation. Id.
    AHAM commented that it does not oppose DOE's proposal to require 
the use of a standard continuous flow calorimeter for gas cooking top 
testing, stating that these devices are standard laboratory equipment. 
(AHAM, No. 12 at p. 12)
    UL commented that the requirements for standard continuous flow 
calorimeter accuracy separating the meter accuracy (error) from the 
readout (error) seem to be based on older Cutler Hammer calorimeters 
and are not applicable to modern equipment or other techniques such as 
a gas chromatograph or bottled gases. (UL, No. 17 at p. 1) UL commented 
that it recommends that the regulation combines the meter accuracy with 
the readout accuracy to have an accuracy requirement for the 
measurement of heat content. (Id.)
    UL further commented that the specification for operating range 
given in section 2.7.2.2 of proposed appendix I1 also seems to be based 
on older Cutler Hammer calorimeters and stated that, in general, 
operating ranges are not required for other instruments such as flow 
meters, volt meters, ammeters, etc. (UL, No. 17 at p. 2) UL recommended 
that section 2.7.2.2 of appendix I1 eliminate the requirement for an 
operating range, claiming that specifying a broad range tends to reduce 
accuracy. (Id.)
    In response to UL's comment regarding the gas meter accuracy, DOE 
notes that these requirements would not apply if a test laboratory were 
to use bottled gas to conduct the cooking top test procedure. Modifying 
the accuracy requirements as suggested by UL could prevent some older 
testing equipment from being able to be used to perform the DOE test 
procedure, thus requiring laboratories that use such equipment to 
purchase newer equipment. DOE has no indications to suggest that such 
older equipment is any less accurate or any less appropriate for use in 
the DOE test

[[Page 51514]]

procedure. Thus, requiring the purchase of newer equipment would 
represent undue test burden. DOE further notes that the requirements as 
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR do not preclude the use of more 
modern equipment. In this final rule, DOE finalizes the requirements 
for the accuracy of the standard continuous flow calorimeter as 
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR.
    In response to UL's comment stating that specifying a broad 
operating range tends to reduce accuracy, DOE notes that the equipment 
used for testing must meet the accuracy specifications defined by the 
test procedure, regardless of whether a broad or narrow operating range 
is specified (i.e., in combination with specifying an accuracy range, 
the specification of a broad operating range has no impact on the 
accuracy of the measured value). DOE recognizes, however, that 
specifying a particular operating range could prevent certain equipment 
from being used that may have a different specified operating range but 
provides an equivalent level of accuracy for the values being measured 
for the DOE test procedure. As such, specifying an accuracy range could 
increase test burden (by requiring the purchase of new equipment) 
without providing any benefit in the form of improved accuracy. For 
this reason, DOE determines that specifying an operating range for the 
gas calorimeter could introduce undue test burden. In this final rule, 
DOE specifies the required accuracy of the standard continuous flow 
calorimeter without specifying an allowable operating range.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposed 
instrumentation specifications for gas calorimeters for gas cooking 
tops, with the elimination of the 750 to 3,500 Btu per cubic foot 
operating range requirement proposed in the November 2021 NOPR.
3. Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops
    In applying the test method in IEC 60350-2:2021 to gas cooking 
tops, DOE must define test vessels that are appropriate for each type 
of burner. The test vessels specified in Section 5.6.1 of both IEC 
60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 are constructed from a 1-mm thick 
stainless steel sidewall welded to a 5-mm thick circular stainless 
steel base, with additional heat-resistant sealant applied.
    The EN 30-2-1 test method, which is designed for use with gas 
cooking tops, specifies test vessels that differ in dimensions, 
material, and construction from those in IEC 60350-2. Further, Table 1 
of EN 30-2-1 defines the test vessel selection based on the nominal 
heat input rate (specified in kilowatts (``kW'') of each burner under 
test, as shown in Table III.1). These test vessels are fabricated from 
a single piece of aluminum, with a wall thickness between 1.5 and 1.8 
mm.

  Table III.1--Test Vessel Selection for Gas Cooking Tops in EN 30-2-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Test vessel
 Nominal heat input range  (kW)  diameter  (mm)           Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
between 1.16 and 1.64 inclusive             220  .......................
between 1.65 and 1.98 inclusive           * 240  .......................
between 1.99 and 2.36 inclusive           * 260  .......................
between 2.37 and 4.2 inclusive.           * 260  Adjust the heat input
                                                  rate of the burner to
                                                  2.36 kW 2%.
greater than 4.2...............           * 300  Adjust the heat input
                                                  rate of the burner to
                                                  4.2 kW 2%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the indicated diameter is greater than the maximum diameter given
  in the instructions, conduct the test using the next lower diameter
  and adjust the heat input rate to the highest heat input of the
  allowable range for that test vessel size, 2%.

    Because they are not made of a ferromagnetic material (such as 
stainless steel), the EN 30-2-1 test vessels could not be used for 
electric-smooth induction cooking tops. To use a consistent set of test 
vessels for all types of gas and electric cooking tops, DOE proposed in 
the November 2021 NOPR to specify in new appendix I1 the IEC 60350-
2:2017 test vessel to be used for each gas burner,\61\ based on heat 
input rate ranges equivalent to those in Table 1 of EN 30-2-1, although 
expressed in Btu per hour (``Btu/h''). 86 FR 60974, 60988. The test 
vessel diameters in EN 30-2-1 do not exactly match those of the test 
vessels in IEC 60350-2, but DOE selected the closest match possible, as 
shown in Table III.2. DOE also proposed to adjust the lower limit of 
one of the burner heat input rate ranges corresponding to the EN 260 mm 
test vessel (1.99-2.36 kW, equivalent to 6,800-8,050 Btu/h) and to 
allocate some of its range to the IEC 240 mm vessel for two reasons. 
First, it would provide more evenly balanced ranges. Second, it would 
avoid a significant mismatch between the heat input rate and test 
vessel sizes at the lower end of the heat input range. Id. DOE did not 
propose to include the notes included in EN 30-2-1, which require 
burners with nominal heat input rates greater than 8,050 Btu/h to be 
tested at heat input rates lower than their maximum rated value. DOE 
preliminarily determined these would not be representative of consumer 
use of such burners. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 51515]]

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

    Similar to electric cooking tops, DOE also proposed in new appendix 
I1 that if a selected test vessel cannot be centered on the cooking 
zone due to interference with a structural component of the cooking 
top, the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be centered on 
the cooking zone be used.\62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

[[Page 51516]]

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

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

    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal in the 
November 2021 NOPR to require the use of IEC test vessels for gas 
cooking tops, and its proposed method for selecting the test vessel 
size based on the gas burner's heat input rate.
4. Burner Heat Input Rate Adjustment
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE recognized that the version of 
appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule did not include 
requirements related to gas outlet pressure, in particular a tolerance 
on the regulator outlet pressure or specifications for the nominal heat 
input rate for burners on gas cooking tops. 86 FR 60974, 60988. From a 
review of the test results from the 2020 Round Robin, DOE tentatively 
concluded in the November 2021 NOPR that the lack of such provisions 
was likely a significant contributor to the greater reproducibility COV 
values observed for gas cooking tops in relation to those for electric 
cooking tops. Id. To improve test procedure reproducibility, DOE 
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to incorporate gas supply pressure 
and regulator outlet pressure (which affects heat input rate) 
requirements into new appendix I1, as described further in the 
following discussion. Id.
    Industry procedures for gas cooking tops include specifications for 
the heat input rate. For example, EN 30-2-1 specifies that before 
testing, each burner is adjusted to within 2 percent of its nominal 
heat input rate. Section 5.3.5 of the American National Standards 
Institute (``ANSI'') Standard Z21.1-2016, ``Household cooking gas 
appliances'' (``ANSI Z21.1'') has a two-step heat input rate 
requirement. First, individual burners must be adjusted to their Btu 
rating at normal inlet test pressure. Next, the heat input rate of the 
burners must be measured after 5 minutes of operation, at which time it 
must be within  5 percent of the nameplate value.
    Based on a review of its test data, DOE tentatively determined in 
the November 2021 NOPR that specifying a tolerance of  5 
percent from the nominal heat input rate may not produce repeatable and 
reproducible test results. Id. at 86 FR 60989. Therefore, DOE proposed 
to specify in new appendix I1 that the measured heat input rate be 
within 2 percent the nominal heat input rate as specified by the 
manufacturer. Id.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the heat input rate be 
measured and adjusted for each burner of the cooking top before 
conducting testing on that burner. Id. The measurement would be taken 
at the maximum heat input rate, with the properly sized test vessel and 
water load centered above the burner to be measured, starting 5 minutes 
after ignition. Id. If the measured average heat input rate of the 
burner is within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner 
as specified by the manufacturer, no adjustment of the heat input rate 
would be made for any testing of that burner. Id.
    DOE also proposed to require adjusting the average heat input rate 
if the measured average heat input rate of the burner is not within 2 
percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by 
the manufacturer. Id. For gas cooking tops with an adjustable internal 
pressure regulator, the pressure regulator would be adjusted such that 
the average heat input rate of the burner under test is within 2 
percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by 
the manufacturer. Id. For gas cooking tops with a non-adjustable 
internal pressure regulator or without an internal pressure regulator, 
the regulator would be removed or blocked in the open position, and the 
gas pressure ahead of all controls would be maintained at the nominal 
manifold pressure specified by the manufacturer. Id. These proposed 
instructions are in accordance with provisions for burner adjustment in 
Section 5.3.3 of ANSI Z21.1. The gas supply pressure would then be 
adjusted until the average heat input rate of the burner under test is 
within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as 
specified by the manufacturer. Id. In either case, the burner would be 
adjusted such that the air flow is sufficient to prevent a yellow flame 
or flame with yellow tips. Id.

[[Page 51517]]

Once the heat input rate has been set for a burner, it would not be 
adjusted during testing of that burner. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal for adjusting the burner heat 
input rate to the nominal heat input rate as specified by the 
manufacturer, and to include a 2-percent tolerance on the heat input 
rate of each burner on a gas cooking top. Id. Below are summaries of 
comments received.
    NYSERDA agreed with including gas supply pressure and regulatory 
outlet pressure requirements to ensure repeatability and 
reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
    The Joint Commenters supported the proposal for adjusting the 
burner heat input rate for gas cooking tops, the inclusion of 
specifications for the heat input rate, and the 2-percent tolerance on 
the heat input rate to ensure reproducibility of test results. (Joint 
Commenters, No. 11 at p. 3)
    NEEA supported the proposed methodology for input rate verification 
and the proposed 2-percent tolerance on input rate, stating that these 
proposals align with the methodology of ASTM food service standards and 
should be rigorous enough to ensure repeatable testing. (NEEA, No. 15 
at p. 2)
    The CA IOUs supported the proposed input rate and incoming gas 
pressure specifications to ensure that units tested at different 
laboratories are tested under comparable conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 14 
at p. 2)
    AHAM commented that the third-party test laboratory it used for its 
testing had problems controlling gas pressure and flow, especially on 
smaller burners rated at 5,000 to 6,000 Btu/h. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 11) 
AHAM stated that depending on unit construction, damage could occur 
from blocking open a built-in gas regulator, internal to the unit, to 
achieve the required gas tolerance. (Id.) AHAM also stated this could 
generate inaccurate results. (Id.)
    AHAM asserted that the proposed tolerance of the average heat input 
rate of the burner under test being within 2 percent of the nominal 
heat input rate of the burner is too small. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 13) 
AHAM stated that it is conducting investigative testing using both a 2-
percent and 5-percent tolerance, and that DOE should wait for the 
results rather than using a calculated assessment of how results change 
based on burner adjustment. (Id.) AHAM recommended that DOE use the 5-
percent tolerance if it decides to move forward without test data to 
support its proposal, stating that a 5-percent tolerance is used in 
well-established industry standards. (Id.) AHAM claimed that DOE's data 
do not demonstrate that variation in the test itself has been reduced. 
(Id.) AHAM stated that other factors, such as improved test technician 
understanding of the test, likely contributed to the reduction in 
variation. (Id.) Additionally, AHAM commented that the tighter 
tolerance on burner heat input rate adds undue burden. AHAM further 
stated that changing barometric pressure conditions must be considered 
within a wider tolerance. (Id.) AHAM commented that the smaller 
tolerance window is more problematic for smaller burners (5,000-6,000 
Btu/h) than for higher-input-rate burners. (Id.)
    UL commented that the procedure for gas burner adjustment defines 
only when to start measuring heat input and not for how long. (UL, No. 
17 at p. 2) UL stated that the duration of the input rate measurement 
should be defined since heat input decreases over time. (Id.) UL 
asserted, for example, that if one laboratory measures heat input for 
10 seconds and another measures it over a time period of 2 minutes, the 
numbers will be different because the heat input is changing while it 
is being measured. (Id.) UL suggested that some laboratories may object 
to a specific time period and stated that a range may be a good 
compromise to accommodate different measurement methods. (Id.) 
According to UL, some laboratories may rely on a stopwatch to measure 
the time of a specified number of rotations of the needle on a wet drum 
meter, and that the amount of time for those rotations depends on the 
size of the meter and the rating for the burner. (Id.) UL commented 
that other laboratories may have equipment to measure instantaneous 
heat input, in which case a time for measurement can align with 
alternative methods. (Id.)
    DOE has not yet received any data from AHAM on this issue and 
encourages AHAM to send any data when it becomes available. AHAM's 
concern regarding the potential damage to the unit from blocking a 
built-in regulator in the open position to achieve the required burner 
heat input rate is not supported by DOE's testing experience. When 
blocking a gas regulator in the open position, to obtain the required 
heat input, the test laboratory would use the laboratory regulator on 
the gas supply line, upstream of the unit, to control the gas supply 
pressure. This external regulation would reduce the pressure and 
mitigate any gas flow fluctuations from the supply line that could 
cause potential damage. DOE also notes that this approach leads to more 
repeatable and reproducible results.
    DOE's 2021 Round Robin test data shows improved repeatability and 
reproducibility in comparison to the 2020 Round Robin. Specifying a 2-
percent tolerance on the burner heat input rate was one of the key 
differences between the two test programs. All of the data DOE has 
presented for both the 2020 Round Robin and the 2021 Round Robin was 
collected by experienced technicians and validated for compliance with 
the appropriate test method. DOE notes that none of the three test 
laboratories that participated in gas testing for the 2021 Round Robin 
reported any difficulty in meeting the 2-percent specification even on 
smaller burners.
    DOE reiterates that the proposed 2-percent tolerance mirrors the 
tolerance specified in the EN 30-2-1 industry test procedure. DOE 
further notes that it did not propose any provisions that would require 
changing barometric conditions. Furthermore, DOE notes that AHAM's 
request for a 5-percent tolerance on the nominal burner heat input rate 
would seemingly contradict AHAM's comment that DOE's efforts to reduce 
variation have not reduced variation enough for certain parts of the 
test procedure (see section III.C of this document).
    DOE disagrees with UL's suggestion to define the duration over 
which the burner heat input rate should be measured. As suggested by 
UL, the appropriate length of time over which the burner heat input 
rate should be measured is based on the type of meter being used and 
test laboratory best practices will depend on the type of meter being 
used. DOE testing suggests that the rate of change of the burner heat 
input rate within a few minutes after 5 minutes of operation is small 
enough that the average burner heat input rate measurement would not 
vary significantly for different measurement periods within that time 
frame. DOE expects that laboratories complete this measurement within a 
few minutes after the end of the 5-minute operating period, regardless 
of the type of meter being used. Therefore, DOE is not specifying a 
period of time over which the average burner heat input rate must be 
measured.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the 
November 2021 NOPR, its proposal for adjusting the burner heat input 
rate to the nominal heat input rate as specified by the manufacturer, 
and to include a 2-percent tolerance on the heat input rate of each 
burner on a gas cooking top.
    For clarity, DOE is removing the word ``average'' from section 
3.1.3 of appendix I1 to avoid implying that the measurement must be 
made over a

[[Page 51518]]

specific length of time and, in particular, to accommodate the option 
to measure instantaneous burner heat input rate after the specified 5 
minutes of operation.
5. Target Power Density for Optional Potential Simmering Setting Pre-
Selection Test
    As discussed in section III.D.2.d of this document, Annex H of IEC 
60350-2:2021 specifies a target power density of 0.8 W/cm\2\ for the 
potential simmering setting pre-selection test for electric cooking 
tops. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed for gas cooking tops to 
specify a separate target power density, which would be measured in Btu 
per hour divided by the area of the cookware bottom in square 
centimeters (``Btu/h[middot]cm\2\''). 86 FR 60974, 60989.
    To evaluate possible values for this target power density, in the 
November 2021 NOPR, DOE investigated test data from five gas cooking 
tops, each tested three times as part of the 2020 Round Robin,\65\ at a 
single test laboratory. Id. The range of power densities measured for 
test cycles of minimum-above-threshold settings was 3.8-11.6 Btu/
h[middot]cm\2\. Id. at 86 FR 60990. The range of power densities 
measured for test cycles of maximum-below-threshold settings was 2.6-
5.9 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\. Id. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE 
preliminarily estimated that a target power density of 4.0 Btu/
h[middot]cm\2\ would be appropriate. Id. DOE noted that it could 
consider specifying a different target power density for the potential 
simmering setting pre-selection test if additional data were to suggest 
that a different value would be more representative than the proposed 
value of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ This test data was not measured according to the test 
procedure proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. DOE preliminarily 
determined that it was still useful to evaluate potential target 
power densities because a cooking top setting's power density is 
inherent and does not vary with test procedure protocol. However, 
due to the lack of burner heat input rate tolerance in the testing, 
some of these tested values may not accurately reflect the expected 
power densities when the heat input rate is within 2 percent of the 
nominal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the December 2021 NODA, DOE presented data from the 2021 Round 
Robin. The additional data DOE collected were on the measured power 
density of the minimum-above-threshold input setting and the maximum-
below-threshold input setting for four gas cooking tops.\66\ 86 FR 
71406, 71408. The range of power densities measured for test cycles of 
minimum-above-threshold settings was 3.2-9.5 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\. The 
range of power densities measured for test cycles of maximum-below-
threshold settings was 2.5-6.4 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The test data are available in the docket for this 
rulemaking at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004. Unlike the data presented in the November 2021 NOPR, these 
test data were measured according to the test procedure proposed in 
the November 2021 NOPR. However, DOE believes the two data sets 
present comparable data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposed 
target power density for gas cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\. 86 
FR 60974, 60990.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed target 
power density for gas cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\.
    DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, its proposed 
target power density for the optional potential simmering setting pre-
selection test for gas cooking tops of 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\.
6. Product Temperature Measurement for Gas Cooking Tops
    As discussed in section III.E.2.b of this document, DOE is 
specifying in new appendix I1 that the temperature of the product must 
be measured at the center of the cooking zone under test before any 
active mode testing. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify 
that this requirement would also apply to gas burner adjustments 
described in section 3.1.3 of new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60990. DOE 
further proposed to specify that for a conventional gas cooking top, 
the product temperature would be measured inside the burner body of the 
cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap. Id. 
Before the standby mode and off mode power test, the product 
temperature would be measured as the average of the temperature 
measured at the center of each cooking zone. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to require measuring a gas 
cooking top's temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone 
under test, after temporarily removing the burner cap. Id.
    AHAM objected to DOE's proposal to require measuring the product 
temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test, 
after temporarily removing the burner cap. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 13) AHAM 
gave several reasons: DOE had not presented data to show that burner 
cap removal is necessary, and this requirement would be impractical, 
invasive, unnecessary, and not in accordance with common practices for 
testing gas cooking appliances. AHAM commented that burners have an 
increased risk of damage if they are tampered with and stated that 
burner disassembly compromises proper and safe performance and is not 
appropriate for gas products. (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 13-14) AHAM urged 
DOE not to require any appliance disassembly in the test procedure. 
(AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14)
    The CA IOUs suggested that DOE clarify where to measure the product 
temperature for products without burner caps. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7)
    In response to AHAM's concern regarding the removal of the gas 
burner cap to measure the product temperature of a gas cooking top, DOE 
notes that to its knowledge and through its testing experience, 
removing the burner cap is generally not difficult and does not risk 
damage to the unit. A test laboratory that participated in the 2021 
Round Robin confirmed with DOE that the removal of the gas burner cap 
is not a complicated or time-consuming requirement. DOE further notes 
that removing the gas burner cap is a common practice among consumers 
as part of the regular cleaning process for gas cooking tops, and 
instructions for doing so are typically included in manufacturer 
instructions. DOE considered not requiring the removal of the gas 
burner cap to measure the product temperature but has determined that 
the method proposed in the November 2021 NOPR is the approach that best 
confirms whether a cooking top's internal components have returned to 
ambient conditions. This confirmation is especially important for gas 
cooking tops because the temperature of the internal components can 
affect critical dimensions, and thus the amount of gas flow and 
entrained air. If the cooking top is not properly tested starting at 
ambient temperature, this factor could lead to unrepeatable results. 
DOE notes that throughout both the 2020 Round Robin and the 2021 Round 
Robin, three test laboratories followed the requirement to measure the 
product temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under 
test, after temporarily removing the burner cap without issue.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent 
with the November 2021 NOPR, to require measuring a gas cooking top's 
temperature inside the burner body of the cooking zone under test, 
after temporarily removing the burner cap. In response to the comment 
from the CA IOUs, DOE clarifies that the burner cap need only be 
removed if one exists.

[[Page 51519]]

G. Definitions and Clarifications

    As part of this final rule, DOE is adding certain definitions and 
clarifications to new appendix I1 in addition to those already 
described.
1. Operating Modes
    To clarify provisions relating to the various operating modes, in 
the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to add definitions of ``active 
mode,'' ``off mode,'' ``standby mode,'' ``inactive mode,'' and 
``combined low-power mode'' to new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60990. 
These definitions are identical to those that had been established in 
the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule.
    DOE proposed to define active mode as ``a mode in which the product 
is connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and is 
performing the main function of producing heat by means of a gas flame, 
electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating.'' Id.
    DOE proposed to define off mode as ``any mode in which a product is 
connected to a mains power source and is not providing any active mode 
or standby function, and where the mode may persist for an indefinite 
time. An indicator that only shows the user that the product is in the 
off position is included within the classification of an off mode.'' 
Id.
    DOE proposed to define standby mode as ``any mode in which a 
product is connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of 
the following user-oriented or protective functions which may persist 
for an indefinite time:

    (1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including 
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch 
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
    (2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or 
status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A 
timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be 
associated with a display) that allows for regularly scheduled tasks 
and that operates on a continuous basis.'' Id. at 86 FR 60990-60991.

    DOE proposed to define inactive mode as ``a standby mode that 
facilitates the activation of active mode by remote switch (including 
remote control), internal sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous 
status display.'' Id. at 86 FR 60991.
    DOE proposed to define combined low-power mode as ``the aggregate 
of available modes other than active mode, but including the delay 
start mode portion of active mode.'' Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of ``active 
mode,'' ``off mode,'' ``standby mode,'' ``inactive mode,'' and 
``combined low-power mode.'' Id.
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE's proposal to define both 
``standby'' and ``inactive'' mode may cause confusion. (CA IOUs, No. 14 
at p. 5) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE remove references to 
``inactive'' mode from the test procedure and stated that the standby 
mode definition would then be used in low-power mode calculations. 
(Id.) The CA IOUs commented that it is their understanding that when 
DOE originally defined inactive mode as a subset of standby mode in the 
final rule pertaining to test procedures for clothes dryers and room 
air conditioners, published on January 6, 2011, it did not intend for 
the terms ``inactive'' and ``standby'' to be defined as separate modes 
for a single product, as has been done in the November 2021 NOPR. (CA 
IOUs, No. 14 at p. 6) The CA IOUs commented that it is their 
understanding that the inactive mode was intended to be referenced 
partly in lieu of standby mode, when the statutory standby definition 
in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 \67\ (``EISA 
2007'') did not apply. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 5-6) The CA IOUs 
recommended that the references to inactive mode be removed from the 
rulemaking unless DOE has identified a strong rationale for using a 
standby definition other than that provided by Congress. (CA IOUs, No. 
14 at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Public Law 110-140 (enacted Dec. 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the CA IOUs' concern that DOE's proposal to define 
both ``standby'' and ``inactive'' mode may cause confusion, DOE notes 
that inactive mode was defined in the November 2021 NOPR as a subset of 
standby mode. It was in section 1.14 of the version of appendix I as 
finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, on which the definitions 
used in the November 2021 NOPR were based. 86 FR 60974, 60991. EPCA, as 
amended by EISA 2007, requires DOE to integrate measures of standby 
mode and off mode energy consumption in any energy consumption metric, 
if technically feasible. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Inactive mode 
is the subset of standby mode measured as part of the energy 
consumption metric. DOE further notes that this terminology is 
consistent with other products such as clothes dryers, room air 
conditioners, and dishwashers. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendices D2, F, and C1.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the 
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of ``active mode,'' ``off 
mode,'' ``standby mode,'' ``inactive mode,'' and ``combined low-power 
mode.''
2. Product Configuration and Installation Requirements
    For additional clarity, in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to 
add definitions of ``combined cooking product,'' ``freestanding,'' 
``built-in,'' and ``drop-in'' to new appendix I1 that were included in 
the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, 
and installation instructions for each of these configurations. 86 FR 
60974, 60991.
    DOE proposed to define combined cooking product as ``a household 
cooking appliance that combines a cooking product with other appliance 
functionality, which may or may not include another cooking product. 
Combined cooking products include the following products: conventional 
range, microwave/conventional cooking top, microwave/conventional oven, 
and microwave/conventional range.'' Id.
    DOE proposed to specify that a conventional cooking top or combined 
cooking product be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions. Id. If the manufacturer's instructions specify that the 
product may be used in multiple installation conditions, the product 
would be installed according to the built-in configuration. Id. DOE 
proposed to require complete assembly of the product with all handles, 
knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place, and that any 
electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles be positioned in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Id.
    DOE proposed that if the product can communicate through a network 
(e.g., Bluetooth[supreg] or internet connection), the network function 
be disabled, if it is possible to disable it by means provided in the 
manufacturer's user manual, for the duration of testing. Id. If the 
network function cannot be disabled, or if means for disabling the 
function are not provided in the manufacturer's user manual, the 
product would be tested in the factory default setting or in the as-
shipped condition. Id. These proposals are consistent with comparable 
provisions in final rule that DOE published for its microwave oven test 
procedure on March 30, 2022. 87 FR 18261, 18268.
    DOE proposed to define ``freestanding'' as applying when ``the 
product is supported by the floor and is not specified in the 
manufacturer's instructions as able to be installed such that it is 
enclosed by surrounding

[[Page 51520]]

cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures.'' 86 FR 60974, 60991. 
DOE proposed that a freestanding combined cooking product be installed 
with the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical 
wall which extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond 
both sides of the product, and with no side walls. Id.
    DOE proposed to define ``built-in'' as applying when ``the product 
is enclosed in surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other similar 
structures on at least three sides, and can be supported by surrounding 
cabinetry or the floor.'' Id. DOE proposed to define ``drop-in'' as 
applying when ``the product is supported by horizontal surface 
cabinetry.'' Id. DOE proposed that a drop-in or built-in combined 
cooking product be installed in a test enclosure in accordance with 
manufacturer's instructions. Id.
    DOE proposed that a conventional cooking top be installed with the 
back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical wall which 
extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond both sides 
of the product. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of product 
configurations and installation requirements. Id.
    AHAM agreed with the proposed definitions for product configuration 
and installation requirements, stating that they align with existing 
industry standards. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14) AHAM commented that it is 
its understanding that DOE's proposal does not require additional 
installation requirements such as aesthetic or safety components (e.g., 
anti-tipping brackets) that do not affect energy test performance, and 
stated that if this is not DOE's intent, then DOE should clarify its 
proposal and provide justification about why aesthetic or safety 
components should be installed, despite the added burden to install. 
(Id.)
    NYSERDA urged DOE to amend the proposed procedure to account for 
network-connected energy usage during testing by requiring products be 
tested in the ``as-shipped'' condition to best represent typical use 
conditions. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2) According to NYSERDA, testing the 
product in the as-shipped condition is the best way to garner test 
results that are representative of real-world conditions, stating that 
it is unlikely the average consumer will read the manufacturer's 
instructions and disable network connectivity. (Id.)
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE provides no information indicating 
that consumers will disable network functionality if they have a 
cooking top with this feature. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 6) The CA IOUs 
asserted that testing the product in the ``as-shipped'' condition would 
be most representative of real-world conditions. (Id.) The CA IOUs 
stated that in the context of various DOE rulemakings, including the 
recently published microwave oven test procedure SNOPR, the CA IOUs 
have consistently commented that leaving networking functions in their 
as-shipped condition is most representative of real-world energy use in 
the absence of data indicating how consumers use connected 
functionality on the product under consideration. (Id.) The CA IOUs 
claimed, in particular, that given the limited user interface of many 
cooking products, granular control of networking capability (including 
on/off functionality) is seldom offered. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented 
that even if granular control of networking capability was offered, 
consumers would likely be unaware of the option to adjust such 
functions, or unable to determine how to do so. (Id.) The CA IOUs 
commented that they are fully supportive of innovation that enhances 
consumer utility but stated that this innovation ideally does not come 
at the expense of efficiency. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that they 
understand the potential benefits of networked cooking products but 
stated that the implementation must be optimized properly. (Id.) The CA 
IOUs suggested that DOE's instruction to turn off networking as 
proposed in the test procedure provides an incentive for manufacturers 
to add a method for disabling connected functionality as cheaply as 
possible in a manner that may not be reasonably accessible to a 
consumer. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 6-7) The CA IOUs commented that this 
leaves consumers who do not take the active steps to disable their 
network functionality with unregulated energy consuming operations. (CA 
IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs commented that if DOE moves forward 
with its proposal to test with network functionality turned off when 
possible, DOE should provide market data illustrating that consumers do 
indeed take the active step to disable networking functionality. (Id.)
    In response to AHAM's comment regarding installation requirements, 
DOE proposed to require complete assembly of the product with all 
handles, knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place, and 
that any electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles be 
positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. To the 
extent that an aesthetic or safety component does not correspond to any 
of these requirements, it would not be required to be installed.
    DOE is aware of a number of cooking tops on the market with varying 
implementations of connected functionality. On such products, DOE has 
observed inconsistent implementations of these connected features 
across different brands, and that the design and operation of these 
features is continuously evolving as the market continues to grow for 
these products.
    DOE remains unaware of any data available, nor did interested 
parties provide any such data, regarding the consumer use of connected 
features. Without such data, DOE is unable to establish a 
representative test configuration for assessing the energy consumption 
of connected functionality for conventional cooking tops during an 
average period of use, as required by EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    DOE has determined that if network functionality cannot be disabled 
by the consumer, or if the manufacturer's user manual does not provide 
instruction for disabling the function, including the energy 
consumption of the enabled network function is more representative than 
excluding the energy consumption associated with the network function. 
For such products, the energy consumption of a connected function that 
cannot be disabled will be measured.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the 
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of product configurations 
and installation requirements.
3. Power Settings
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify power setting 
selection by adding definitions of ``power setting,'' ``infinite power 
settings,'' ``multi-ring cooking zone,'' and ``maximum power setting'' 
in new appendix I1, and by specifying which power settings are 
considered for each type of cooking zone. 86 FR 60974, 60991.
    DOE proposed to define power setting as ``a setting on a cooking 
zone control that offers a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or 
electric inductive heating.'' Id.
    DOE proposed to define infinite power settings as ``a cooking zone 
control without discrete power settings, allowing for selection of any 
power setting below the maximum power setting.'' Id.
    DOE proposed to define a multi-ring cooking zone as ``a cooking 
zone on a

[[Page 51521]]

conventional cooking top with multiple concentric sizes of electric 
resistance heating elements or gas burner rings.'' Id.
    DOE proposed to define maximum power setting as ``the maximum 
possible power setting if only one cookware item is used on the cooking 
zone or cooking area of a conventional cooking top, including any 
optional power boosting features. For conventional electric cooking 
tops with multi-ring cooking zones or cooking areas, the maximum power 
setting is the maximum power corresponding to the concentric heating 
element with the largest diameter, which may correspond to a power 
setting which may include one or more of the smaller concentric heating 
elements. For conventional gas cooking tops with multi-ring cooking 
zones, the maximum power is the maximum heat input rate when the 
maximum number of rings of the cooking zone are ignited.'' Id. This 
definition is based on the definition of ``maximum power'' in Section 
3.14 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021, which includes a 
note specifying that boost function must be considered in determining 
the maximum power setting.
    DOE also proposed to clarify in new appendix I1 which power 
settings would be considered in the search for the simmering setting, 
based on its testing experience. Id. On a multi-ring cooking zone on a 
conventional gas cooking top, all power settings would be considered, 
whether or not they ignite all rings of orifices. Id. On a multi-ring 
cooking zone on a conventional electric cooking top, only power 
settings corresponding to the concentric heating element with the 
largest diameter would be considered, which may correspond to operation 
with one or more of the smaller concentric heating elements energized. 
Id.
    On a cooking zone with infinite power settings for which the 
available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is more than 150 
rotational degrees, power settings that are spaced by 10 rotational 
degrees would be evaluated. Id. On a cooking zone with infinite power 
settings for which the available range of rotation from maximum to 
minimum is less than or equal to 150 rotational degrees, power settings 
that are spaced by 5 rotational degrees would be evaluated. Id. Based 
on its testing experience, DOE tentatively determined in the November 
2021 NOPR that 5 or 10 rotational degrees, as appropriate, would 
provide sufficient granularity in determining the simmering setting. 
Id. Given the provision, detailed in section III.E.4 of this document, 
to normalize the energy use of the Energy Test Cycle to a value 
representative of a simmering test with a final water temperature of 90 
[deg]C, DOE tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that 
testing more settings would be unduly burdensome. Id. at 86 FR 60991-
60992.
    For cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power 
setting, DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that it is aware that the 
knob may yield different input power results for the same setting 
depending on the direction in which the knob is turned to reach that 
setting. Id. at 86 FR 60992. The cause of this is hysteresis caused by 
potential backlash in the knob or valve. Id. at 86 FR 60992. To avoid 
hysteresis and ensure consistent input power results for the same knob 
setting, DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR that the selection knob 
be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to select 
the potential simmering setting for the test. Id. DOE also proposed 
that if the appropriate setting is passed, the test must be repeated 
after allowing the product to return to ambient conditions. Id. DOE 
tentatively determined in the November 2021 NOPR that this 
specification would help obtain consistent input power for a given 
power setting, particularly on gas cooking tops, and thus improve 
repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed definitions of ``power 
setting,'' ``infinite power settings,'' ``multi-ring cooking zone,'' 
and ``maximum power setting.'' Id. DOE also requested comment on its 
proposal for the subsets of power settings on each type of cooking zone 
that are considered as part of the identification of the simmering 
setting. Id. DOE further requested comment on its proposal that for 
cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, the 
selection knob always be turned in the direction from higher power to 
lower power to select the potential simmering setting for a simmering 
test. Id.
    NYSERDA agreed with the clarification as to which direction knobs 
should be rotated during the potential simmering setting determination 
to ensure repeatability and reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
    The CA IOUs supported DOE's proposal to demarcate discrete test 
settings for cooking tops with infinite controls, stating that this 
would minimize the chance that laboratories conduct tests under 
different test conditions. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also 
commented that it is not immediately clear where the 5 or 10-degree 
increments start. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7) The CA IOUs requested 
greater clarity from DOE on this setting selection process, and that 
DOE include visual examples to reference. (Id.)
    In response to the CA IOUs' request for greater clarity on the 
starting location of the 5 or 10-degree increments on a cooking top 
knob with infinite controls, DOE notes that the lowest power setting on 
a cooking top is the first position that meets the definition of a 
power setting (i.e., a setting that offers a gas flame, electric 
resistance heating, or electric inductive heating), irrespective of how 
the knob is labeled. The 5 or 10-degree increments would start at the 
location of the lowest power setting. In this final rule, DOE is adding 
this clarification on where the 5 or 10-degree increments start to 
section 2.8.3 of appendix I1. A small difference in determining the 
lowest power setting between testing laboratories should not affect the 
reproducibility of the test results because of the requirement to 
normalize the per-cycle energy use for the final water temperature, as 
discussed in section III.E.4 of this document. Indeed, in the 2021 
Round Robin, each testing laboratory determined for itself the location 
of the lowest power setting based on these instructions and in 
aggregate produced results with reproducibility COVs that DOE has 
determined are acceptable.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the 
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed definitions of ``power setting,'' 
``infinite power settings,'' ``multi-ring cooking zone,'' and ``maximum 
power setting''. DOE also finalizes its proposal, consistent with the 
November 2021 NOPR and with the changes discussed above, to specify the 
subset of power settings on each type of cooking zone that are 
considered as part of the identification of the simmering setting. DOE 
also finalizes its proposal to require that for cooking tops with 
rotating knobs for selecting the power setting, the selection knob 
always be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to 
select the potential simmering setting for a simmering test.
4. Specialty Cooking Zone
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include a definition of 
a ``specialty cooking zone,'' including the clarification that such a 
cooking zone would not be tested under new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 
60992. DOE proposed to define a specialty cooking zone as ``any cooking 
zone that is designed for use only with non-circular cookware, such as 
bridge zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles.

[[Page 51522]]

Specialty cooking zones are not tested under this appendix.'' Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed definition of specialty 
cooking zone. Id.
    The CA IOUs expressed uncertainty regarding why specialty cooking 
zones should be exempted from testing and recommended that DOE 
investigate the usage of specialty cooking zones. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at 
p. 7) The CA IOUs stated that testing units with specialty cooking 
zones would require a novel approach, but that they do not believe 
these units should be discounted simply because they are not a uniform 
circle. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that IEC 60350-2:2017 has some 
direction for rectangular shapes and elliptical cookware. (Id.)
    AHAM supported the exclusion of specialty cooking zones under the 
proposed test procedure and commented that specialty cooking zones for 
circular and non-circular cookware exist. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 14) AHAM 
recommended removing the reference to non-circular cookware from the 
definition of a specialty cooking zone, stating that the proposed 
definition is too strict. (Id.)
    In response to the CA IOUs' comment, the predominance of circular 
cookware on the market suggests that non-circular cookware is not 
representative of typical consumer usage. Therefore, a cooking zone 
designed for use only with non-circular cookware would not be expected 
to be used with any regularity, such that measuring its energy use 
would not be representative of the energy use of a cooking top during a 
representative average consumer use cycle, as is required by EPCA. (See 
42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    DOE further notes that its definition of specialty cooking zone 
does not categorize specialty cooking zones on the basis of the shape 
of the cooking zone itself; rather, the definition categorizes cooking 
zones designed for use only with non-circular cookware as one type of 
specialty cooking zone (emphasis added). See section III.E.1 of this 
document, for further discussion on testing non-circular cooking zones 
that are not specialty cooking zones.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposed definition of 
specialty cooking zone, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR. In 
response to AHAM's comment and for additional clarity, DOE is 
reordering the wording of the list of example specialty cooking zones 
within the definition to clarify that bridge zones are the only 
specific example provided of a cooking zone that is designed for use 
only with non-circular cookware; the references to warming plate, 
grill, and griddle are examples of types of specialty cooking zones 
other than cooking zones that are designed for use only with non-
circular cookware.
5. Turndown Temperature
    The turndown temperature (labeled ``Tc'' in both IEC 60350-2:2017 
and IEC 60350-2:2021) is the measured water temperature at the time at 
which the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls to change 
the power setting, i.e., at ``turndown.'' The target turndown 
temperature (which DOE proposed to label ``Tctarget'' in the 
November 2021 NOPR) is calculated for each cooking zone according to 
Section 7.5.2.1 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 and 
section 3.1.4.2 of appendix I1, after conducting the overshoot 
test.\68\ The target turndown temperature is the ``ideal'' turndown 
temperature, in that it is calculated such that the temperature of the 
water can rise higher than 90 [deg]C with the lowest amount of energy 
use after the power is reduced, making use of the stored thermal energy 
of the cooking top, test vessel, and water load. Tctarget is 
calculated as 93 [deg]C minus the amount that the water temperature 
``overshoots'' the temperature at which the power is turned off during 
the overshoot test. If the measured turndown temperature, Tc, is not 
between -0.5 [deg]C and +1 [deg]C of Tctarget, the simmering 
test evaluated according to section 3.1.4.5 of appendix I1 is 
considered invalid and must be repeated after allowing the product to 
return to ambient conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The overshoot test is a test conducted before any simmering 
tests are initiated. The appropriate test vessel and water load are 
placed on the heating element or burner, which is turned to the 
maximum power setting. The power or heat input is shut off when the 
water temperature reaches 70 [deg]C. The maximum water temperature 
reached after the power/heat input is shut off is used to calculate 
the target turndown temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the November 2021 NOPR, Whirlpool commented that 
when the time at which the tester has physically taken the action to 
rotate the knob is different than the time at which the power stops, 
the identification of the turndown temperature is unclear. (Whirlpool, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 15) Whirlpool commented that its 
data has shown that if the element stays on after the knob has been 
physically rotated, the water temperature exceeds what Whirlpool 
characterized as the 93 [deg]C limit. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 8 at p. 16)
    In response to Whirlpool's concern that the water temperature may 
exceed 93 [deg]C during the simmering test, DOE notes that the test 
procedure does not define a temperature limit (at 93 [deg]C or any 
other temperature) that the water temperature must remain under for a 
simmering test to be valid. Although the value of 93 [deg]C is used as 
a constant in the formula for calculating Tctarget, this 
formula does not imply a temperature limit during the simmering test.
    Nevertheless, DOE agrees with Whirlpool that additional 
clarification regarding the turndown temperature is needed, in 
particular to address situations when there is a delay between the time 
at which the tester turns down the controls and the time at which the 
power decreases accordingly. DOE considered the test burden of defining 
the turndown temperature based on the time at which the power 
decreases. This led DOE to determine that the burden could be 
significant for products exhibiting this behavior because a larger than 
typical number of tests could be considered invalid on the basis of Tc 
not being within the required range and subsequently needing re-
testing. DOE compared this burden to the potential repeatability 
concerns of defining the turndown temperature based on the time at 
which the tester takes the physical action of adjusting the cooking top 
controls (e.g., rotating the knob) if the power decrease lag is 
unrepeatable. In DOE's testing, for many electric cooking tops, the 
power level at the lower power settings is achieved by duty-cycling the 
power to the heating element. For some units this duty cycle may start 
with the ``on'' part of the duty cycle. For these units in particular, 
it may be impossible to determine retroactively from the data when the 
cooking top power setting has been changed, because the measured power 
will remain at the maximum output even after the setting has been 
changed. Therefore, DOE has determined that defining the turndown 
temperature at the time at which the power drops would not be 
repeatable. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is defining the turndown 
temperature based on the time at which the tester adjusts the cooking 
top controls to change the power setting. In particular, because it can 
take several seconds to adjust the cooking top controls on certain 
cooking tops, DOE is defining the turndown temperature based on the 
time at which the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls 
(emphasis added).
    In this final rule, DOE is including definitions for the target 
turndown temperature and the turndown temperature in section 1 of 
appendix I1. DOE defines target turndown temperature 
(Tctarget) as ``the temperature as calculated according to

[[Page 51523]]

Section 7.5.2.1 of IEC 60350-2:2021 and section 3.1.4.2 of appendix I1, 
for each cooking zone.'' DOE defines turndown temperature (Tc) for each 
cooking zone, as ``the measured water temperature at the time at which 
the tester begins adjusting the cooking top controls to change the 
power setting.'' The test procedure adopted in this final rule uses the 
defined terms where applicable.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include in new appendix 
I1 the formula for calculating the target turndown temperature after 
conducting the overshoot test based on DOE testing experience. That 
experience has shown that referencing the definition of this value in 
IEC 60350-2 (rather than providing the definition within the DOE test 
procedure) can lead to inadvertent errors in performing the 
calculation. 86 FR 60974, 60992. The target turndown temperature is 
calculated as 93 [deg]C minus the difference between the maximum 
measured temperature during the overshoot test, Tmax, and 
the 20-second average temperature at the time the power is turned off 
during the overshoot test, T70. Two common mistakes in 
calculating the target turndown temperature are using the target value 
of 70 [deg]C rather than the measured T70 in the formula and 
failing to round the target turndown temperature to the nearest degree 
Celsius. Id. By including the formula for the target turndown 
temperature in the new appendix I1, DOE stated in the November 2021 
NOPR that it aims to reduce the incidence of such errors. Id.
    DOE requested comments on its proposal to include the formula for 
the target turndown temperature in the new appendix I1. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to include 
the formula for the target turndown temperature in the new appendix I1.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent 
with the November 2021 NOPR, to include the formula for the target 
turndown temperature in the new appendix I1.

H. Test Conditions and Instrumentation

    In this final rule, DOE is incorporating the test conditions and 
instrumentation requirements of IEC 60350-2:2021 into the new appendix 
I1 with the following additions.
1. Electrical Supply
    Section 5.2 of both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 specifies 
that the electrical supply is required to be at ``the rated voltage 
with a relative tolerance of 1%'' and ``the rated frequency 
1%.'' Both IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 further 
specify that the supply voltage and frequency shall be the nominal 
voltage and frequency of the country in which the appliance is intended 
to be used. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify in new 
appendix I1 that the electrical supply for active mode testing be 
maintained at either 240 volts 1 percent or 120 volts 
1 percent, according to the manufacturer's instructions, 
and at 60 Hz  1 percent, except for products which do not 
allow for a mains electrical supply. 86 FR 60974, 60992.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed electrical supply 
requirements for active mode testing. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed electrical 
supply requirements for active mode testing.
    During the 2021 Round Robin, DOE observed intermittent 
instantaneous voltage fluctuations outside of the required tolerance on 
certain units in its test sample. DOE understands that these 
fluctuations are a normal response to the turning on or off of major 
electrical components and that such momentary fluctuations do not 
measurably affect the unit's energy consumption. The Task Force has 
added a statement on the voltage conditions to AHAM's draft test 
method, stating that ``The actual voltage shall be maintained and 
recorded throughout the test. Instantaneous voltage fluctuations caused 
by the turning on or off of electrical components shall not be 
considered.'' This is consistent with language included in AHAM's HRF-
1-2019 test method, ``Energy and Internal Volume of Consumer 
Refrigeration Products'', which DOE has incorporated by reference into 
its test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers, and miscellaneous refrigeration products. 86 FR 56790, 56801 
(Oct. 12, 2021). In this final rule, DOE incorporates this same 
language into its electrical supply specification for active mode 
testing of conventional cooking tops.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent 
with the November 2021 NOPR, to specify in new appendix I1 that the 
electrical supply for active mode testing be maintained at either 240 
volts 1 percent or 120 volts 1 percent, 
according to the manufacturer's instructions, and at 60 Hz  
1 percent, except for products which do not allow for a mains 
electrical supply, with the new addition regarding instantaneous 
fluctuations discussed above.
2. Water Load Mass Tolerance
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify a tolerance on 
the water load mass in the new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60992. Neither 
the version of appendix I as finalized in the December 2016 Final Rule, 
IEC 60350-2:2017 nor IEC 60350-2:2021 includes a tolerance on the water 
load mass. DOE proposed to specify a tolerance of  0.5 
grams (``g'') for each water load mass, to improve the repeatability 
and reproducibility of the test procedure. Id.
    DOE requested comment on the proposed tolerance of  0.5 
g for each water load mass. Id.
    NYSERDA commented that it supports DOE's effort to define a 
tolerance for water load mass to ensure repeatability and 
reproducibility. (NYSERDA, No. 10 at p. 2)
    AHAM opposed DOE's proposal to set the allowable tolerance on the 
water load mass as  0.5 g, stating that the proposed 
tolerance is too small and increases test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 
14) AHAM commented that DOE has not presented data showing the need for 
this tight of a tolerance and that AHAM has not seen evidence that 
tightening this tolerance will reduce overall test variation. (Id.) 
AHAM commented that it requests that DOE investigate alternative 
tolerances for the water load mass. (Id.)
    In response to AHAM's comment, DOE notes that the  0.5 
g water load mass tolerance was used for the 2021 Round Robin testing, 
and none of the participating laboratories reported any problem 
achieving this tolerance. Furthermore, this testing achieved repeatable 
results. In addition, no stakeholders provided any data indicating that 
a wider tolerance would not negatively impact the results.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent 
with the November 2021 NOPR, to specify a tolerance of  0.5 
g for each water load mass.
3. Test Vessel Flatness
    In its petition, AHAM raised concerns about the impact of pan 
warpage on the repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. 
83 FR 17944, 17958. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE investigated 
potential pan warpage over repeated test cycles. 86 FR 60974, 60992.
    DOE test data showed some amount of variation in the flatness 
measurement over time for each test vessel, but there was no consistent 
or substantive trend. Id. at 86 FR 60993. Therefore, in the November 
2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that pan warpage is not an issue 
of concern for the test procedure. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed determination that pan

[[Page 51524]]

warpage does not affect repeatability and reproducibility of the test 
procedure. Id.
    AHAM commented that DOE's assessment of the effects of pan warpage 
are inadequate because no gas units were evaluated. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 
15) AHAM commented that if part of the test vessel is closer or further 
from the heating source, it will likely have an effect on how the water 
is heated. (Id.) AHAM commented that it requests information on the 
types of electric units that DOE evaluated, particularly induction 
units. (Id.) AHAM commented that this may have implications relating to 
the use of the same pots for gas and electric units, stating that 
warpage from gas testing may have significant impact on induction 
testing when using the same vessels, for example. (Id.)
    In response to AHAM's comment, DOE notes that while it does not 
have data on the effects of gas cooking top testing on test vessel 
flatness at this time, the 2021 Round Robin testing, which achieved 
repeatable results, was conducted using the same test vessels for both 
electric and gas cooking tops. This indicates that if any warpage did 
occur, it did not significantly impact the repeatability or 
reproducibility of test results on either gas or electric cooking tops.
    In response to AHAM's request for information on DOE's flatness 
testing, Table III.3 lists the number of test cycles that were run on 
each unit type for each test vessel size for which flatness data was 
presented in the November 2021 NOPR.

  Table III.3--Number of Test Cycles on Each Unit Type for Each Test Vessel Size Presented in the November 2021
                                                      NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Test vessel diameter (mm)           150             180             210             270            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cycles on Coil Units..              21               7               0               0              28
Number of Cycles on Radiant                    4              12              10               5              31
 Units..........................
Number of Cycles on Induction                  0               6               0               0               6
 Units..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its determination, 
consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, that to the extent pan warpage 
occurs during testing, it does not affect repeatability and 
reproducibility of the test procedure.

I. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption

1. Incorporation by Reference of IEC 62301
    EPCA requires DOE to include the standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption in any energy consumption metric, if technically feasible. 
(See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) In the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE 
incorporated IEC 62301 Second Edition for measuring the power in 
standby mode and off mode of conventional cooking products. This 
includes five provisions: the room ambient air temperature from Section 
4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, the electrical supply 
voltage from Section 4, Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, 
the watt-meter from Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 Second 
Edition, portions of the installation and set-up from Section 5, 
Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, and the stabilization 
requirements from Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 Second 
Edition. 77 FR 65942, 65948. DOE also specified that the measurement of 
standby mode and off mode power be made according to Section 5, 
Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 Second Edition, except for conventional 
cooking products in which power varies as a function of the clock time 
displayed in standby mode (see section III.I.2 of this final rule). Id. 
This procedure is used by microwave ovens in the current version of 
appendix I. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include the same 
procedure in the new appendix I1 for conventional cooking tops. 86 FR 
60974, 60993.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to incorporate IEC 62301 
Second Edition to provide the method for measuring standby mode and off 
mode power, except for conventional cooking products in which power 
varies as a function of the clock time displayed in standby mode. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposal to 
incorporate IEC 62301 Second Edition to provide the method for 
measuring standby mode and off mode power, except for conventional 
cooking products in which power varies as a function of the clock time 
displayed in standby mode.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent 
with the November 2021 NOPR, to incorporate IEC 62301 Second Edition to 
provide the method for measuring standby mode and off mode power, 
except for conventional cooking products in which power varies as a 
function of the clock time displayed in standby mode.
2. Standby Power Measurement for Cooking Tops With Varying Power as a 
Function of Clock Time
    In the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE determined that for 
conventional cooking products in which power varies as a function of 
the clock time displayed in standby mode, measuring standby mode and 
off mode power according to Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 
Second Edition would cause manufacturers to incur significant burden 
that would not be warranted by any potential improved accuracy of the 
test measurement. 77 FR 65942, 65948. Therefore, the October 2012 Final 
Rule required a modified approach from IEC 62301 First Edition. It 
implemented the following language in appendix I: for units in which 
power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, clock 
time would be set to 3:23 at the end of the stabilization period 
specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 First Edition, and 
the average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) 
of IEC 62301 First Edition would be used, but with a single test period 
of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec after an additional stabilization period until 
the clock time reached 3:33. Id.
    In a final rule published on January 18, 2013, DOE implemented the 
same approach for microwave ovens in appendix I. 78 FR 4015, 4020.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate in the new 
appendix I1 the same approach for measuring the standby power of 
cooking tops in which the power consumption of the display varies as a 
function of the time displayed, with clarifications. 86 FR 60974, 
60994. In response to a test laboratory's feedback, DOE proposed to 
update the wording from that finalized in the October 2012 Final Rule 
to provide additional direction regarding the two stabilization 
periods. Id. The proposed language read, ``For units in which power 
varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, set the clock 
time to 3:23 at the end of an initial stabilization period, as 
specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301

[[Page 51525]]

First Edition. After an additional 10-minute stabilization period, 
measure the power use for a single test period of 10 minutes +0/-2 
seconds that starts when the clock time first reads 3:33. Use the 
average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of 
IEC 62301 First Edition.'' Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to incorporate into appendix 
I1 IEC 62301 First Edition for measuring standby mode and off mode 
power for conventional cooking tops in which power varies as a function 
of the clock time displayed in standby mode. Id. DOE did not receive 
any comments regarding this proposal.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent 
with the November 2021 NOPR, to incorporate IEC 62301 First Edition for 
measuring standby mode and off mode power for conventional cooking tops 
in which power varies as a function of the clock time displayed in 
standby mode.

J. Metrics

1. Annual Active Mode Energy Consumption
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to calculate cooking top 
annual active mode energy consumption as the average normalized per-
cycle energy use across all tested cooking zones multiplied by the 
number of annual cycles. 86 FR 60974, 60994. The per-cycle energy use 
would be normalized in two ways: first, by interpolating to represent a 
final water temperature of 90 [deg]C, as described in section III.E.4 
of this document, and second, by scaling according to the ratio of a 
representative water load mass to the water mass used in the test. Id.
    To determine the representative water load mass for both electric 
and gas cooking tops for the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE reviewed the 
surface unit diameters and input rates for cooking tops (including 
those incorporated into combined cooking products) available on the 
market at the time of a supplemental NOPR that DOE published prior to 
the December 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 57374, 57387 (Aug. 22, 2016). To 
determine the market-weighted average water load mass, DOE used the 
methodology in EN 60350-2:2013, which is the same as the methodology in 
IEC 60350-2:2017 and IEC 60350-2:2021 for selecting test vessel 
diameters and their corresponding water load masses. DOE determined 
that the market-weighted average water load mass for both electric and 
gas cooking top models available on the U.S. market was 2,853 g 
(equivalent to around 12 U.S. cups or 0.75 gallons) and used that value 
in the December 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 91418, 91437.
    DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to use the same 
representative water load mass for per-cycle energy use normalization 
of 2,853 g in the new appendix I1. 86 FR 60974, 60994.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to use a representative water 
load mass of 2,853 g in the new appendix I1. Id.
    AHAM commented that it believes that DOE's proposed representative 
water load mass of 2,853 g is overestimated and multiplied by more than 
one cooking use per day. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15) AHAM commented that it 
is unclear that this load is representative of actual use. (Id.) AHAM 
asked DOE to reanalyze this calculation using updated appliance 
shipments and stated that AHAM is glad to consider providing updated 
shipments under confidentiality agreement upon request. (Id.)
    In response to AHAM's comment, DOE notes that it does not expect 
the representative water load mass per cycle to have changed since 
2016. DOE also notes, as discussed in further detail below, that AHAM's 
opposition to the proposed water load mass value is based in part on a 
mistaken understanding that the annual active-mode energy consumption 
is calculated based on 12 cups of water per cooking zone per day 
(emphasis added). DOE clarifies that the annual active-mode energy 
consumption, as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR, was calculated 
based on 12 cups of water per cooking top per day (emphasis added); 
i.e., not multiplied by the number of cooking zones on the cooking top.
    For reference, DOE further notes that a water load of 12 cups 
represents roughly enough water to cook 12 ounces of pasta, which is 
approximately 3-5 individual servings.\69\ This further supports the 
determination of 12 cups of water per cooking top per day as a 
reasonable estimate of representative consumer use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ A reputable cooking website states that 4 quarts (16 cups) 
of water are needed to cook 1 pound (16 ounces) of pasta; i.e., 1 
cup of water per ounce of pasta. The same source states that 2 \1/2\ 
to 4 \1/2\ ounces of pasta represent an individual serving. Using 
this conversion, 12 ounces of pasta equates to 2.7 to 4.8 servings. 
See www.eataly.com/us_en/magazine/how-to/how-to-cook-pasta/. Last 
accessed April 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, DOE maintains its determination that 2,853 g per 
cooking top per day is a representative water load mass.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent 
with the November 2021 NOPR, to use a representative water load mass of 
2,853 g per cooking top per day in the new appendix I1.
    In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE used data from the 2009 
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS'') and a review of field 
energy consumption survey data of residential cooking from 2009 and 
2010 to estimate 207.5 cycles per year for electric cooking tops and 
214.5 cycles per year for gas cooking tops. 81 FR 91418, 91438. For the 
November 2021 NOPR, DOE determined an updated value of annual cooking 
top cycles based on analyzing data from three more recent sources. 86 
FR 60974, 60994.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE analyzed the 5,686 household 
responses from the 2015 RECS to estimate the number of annual cooking 
top cycles by installation configuration. Id. The 2015 RECS asked 
respondents, geographically distributed in the United States, to 
provide the number of uses per week of their standalone cooking top and 
the cooking top portion of a combined cooking product (which included a 
cooking top with a conventional oven.) From these weekly frequency-of-
use data, DOE calculated a weighted-average annual number of cooking 
top cycles of 418. Id. This value represents an average of both gas and 
electric cooking tops, as well as an average of both standalone cooking 
tops and the cooking top components of combined cooking products. In 
the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that a single value 
for both gas and electric cooking tops is most representative of 
consumer usage, as DOE is not aware of any reason for consumers of 
products with different energy sources to use their cooking products 
more or less frequently. Id.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE also reviewed data provided by AHAM 
through its Task Force, which summarized the cooking patterns of 3,508 
consumers with connected cooking products, based on information 
collected via their network functions. Id. Although the data did not 
identify specific geographical locations, AHAM indicated the sample of 
consumers represented a distribution of connected cooking product 
owners across the United States. Id. This AHAM data set showed an 
average annual number of cooking top cycles of 365. Id. DOE also 
analyzed a third set of field-metered data (i.e., data collected from 
measuring the consumption of individual cooking tops as used by 
consumers in real-world installations), which showed a median of 437 
annual cooking top cycles. Id.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to use the 2015 RECS value 
of 418 cycles per year for calculating

[[Page 51526]]

annual active mode energy use. Id. This is the median of the three 
considered values and is based on the largest sample size and broadest 
distribution by geography and household characteristics.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to use a value of 418 annual 
cooking top cycles per year. Id.
    The CA IOUs commented that they recommend that frequency of use 
data be updated to include information collected showing the impact of 
the COVID-19 pandemic on home cooking habits, as identified in the CA 
IOUs' comment in response to DOE's notification of proposed 
determination not to amend energy conservations standards for 
conventional cooking products published on December 14, 2020. (CA IOUs, 
No. 14 at p. 7 referencing 85 FR 80982) The CA IOUs commented 
referencing a marketing and public relations firm's study \70\ which 
found that COVID-19 has increased cooking habits and that consumers 
expect that these new habits will persist. (Id. referencing EERE-2014-
BT-STD-005, CA IOUs, No. 89 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that this 
projection would increase annual energy consumption projections. (CA 
IOUs, No. 14 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Hunter: Food Study 2020 Special Report (America Gets 
Cooking: The Impact of COVID-19 on Americans' Food Habits). 
Published in December 2020. Available at www.hunterpr.com/foodstudy_coronavirus/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM commented that DOE's proposed value of 418 annual cooking top 
cycles per year in combination with the proposed 2,853 g representative 
water load mass contribute to an overestimate of annual energy use. 
(AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15) AHAM commented that DOE should provide details 
on its methodology and calculation steps justifying the annual number 
of cycles from 2015 RECS data. (Id.) AHAM commented that it believes 
the proposed number of annual cycles is too high and that it 
exaggerates the representative cycles and the representative water load 
mass, stating that these values should not be determined separately. 
(Id.) AHAM commented that the proposed test procedure requires the 
energy of all four cooking zones to be calculated during a heat up and 
a simmer, and stated that by its calculation, the annual energy use 
represents the equivalent of 1,672 operations of one cooking zone's 
heat up and simmer per year. (Id.) AHAM commented that the energy test 
represents, on average, 1,400 seconds of operation per run on each 
cooking zone and stated that this equates to 23.3 minutes per cooking 
zone or, by AHAM's calculation, a total of 93 minutes of operations per 
unit per test (23.3 minutes x 4 cooking zones). (Id.) AHAM commented 
that the operation time of 93 minutes multiplied by DOE's proposed 
number of cycles of 418 and divided by 365 days in a year results in 
107 minutes (1.8 hours) of total operation of the cooking top per day. 
(Id.) AHAM commented that this value conflicts with AHAM consumer 
research and manufacturers connected data on usage, which show daily 
usage of 70.1 minutes and 53.8 minutes, respectively. (AHAM, No. 12 at 
pp. 15-16)
    In response to the CA IOUs' comment, DOE notes that while the CA 
IOUs provided data suggesting that COVID-19 has increased cooking 
habits and that consumers expect that these new habits will persist, 
DOE does not have data reflecting the degree to which these cooking 
habits may have changed. DOE is also unable to make projections about 
future trends in consumer cooking habits. DOE will continue to monitor 
patterns in consumer frequency of use data and will consider updating 
its annual energy consumption projections in the future, should 
additional data suggest that updates are warranted.
    As AHAM's requested, below are details about how DOE calculated its 
proposed value of 418 annual cooking top cycles per year. DOE divided 
the weekly frequency of use data obtained from 2015 RECS data by 7 to 
obtain a daily frequency of use of 1.144 average daily cooking top 
cycles across all product types that include a cooking top. DOE then 
multiplied 1.144 daily cooking top cycles by 365 days in a year to 
obtain 418 annual cooking top cycles per year.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 1.144 x 365 = 417.6, rounded to 418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to AHAM's comment regarding its calculation of daily 
cooking top usage, the annual energy calculation proposed in the 
November 2021 NOPR represents 418 annual cycles multiplied by the 
average of all heating elements on a cooking top, not, as AHAM stated, 
the sum of all heating elements. For example, as proposed, on a cooking 
top with four cooking zones, the proposed 418 annual cooking top cycles 
would be allocated over all 4 cooking zones, for an average of 104.5 
annual cooking cycles per cooking zone. DOE does not expect, nor does 
the test procedure calculation project, that each cooking zone be used 
for 418 annual cycles (for a total of 1,672 cycles on a cooking top 
with four cooking zones), as posited by AHAM.
    Assuming a range of 23 to 37 minutes per test cycle (as supported 
by DOE's test data),\72\ 418 annual cooking top cycles would result in 
a range of 9,614 \73\ to 15,466 \74\ minutes of cooking top use per 
year, or an average range of 34 to 42 minutes per day. This is within 
the range of data AHAM has provided as part of this rulemaking, and the 
ongoing Task Force, which suggest daily cooking top use ranging from 18 
minutes \75\ to 70.1 minutes \76\ (see section III.J.2 for further 
discussion of cooking top cycle time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Based on DOE's test data, the time to t90 (see 
definition in section III.E.3 of this document) varies by technology 
type. For induction units, the time to t90 is around 3 
minutes; for coil and radiant units, the time to t90 is 
around 6-9 minutes; and for gas units, the time to t90 is 
around 15-17 minutes. The test cycle duration is equal to the time 
to t90 plus a 20-minute simmering period.
    \73\ 23 minutes per test cycle x 418 annual cooking top cycles = 
9,614 minutes of cooking top use per year.
    \74\ 37 minutes per test cycle x 418 annual cooking top cycles = 
15,466 minutes of cooking top use per year.
    \75\ See discussion of this data in section III.J.2 of this 
document.
    \76\ See AHAM, No. 12 at p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent 
with the November 2021 NOPR, to use a value of 418 annual cooking top 
cycles per year.
2. Combined Low-Power Mode Hours
    The number of cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours is 
calculated as the number of hours in a year, 8,760, minus the number of 
annual active mode hours for the cooking top, which for most product 
types is equal to the number of annual cycles multiplied by cycle time. 
Additional calculations, as discussed below, are necessary for the 
cooking top component of a combined cooking product.
    In a NOPR preceding the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE investigated 
the hours and energy consumption associated with each possible 
operating mode for conventional cooking tops, including inactive, 
Sabbath, off, and active modes. 75 FR 75290, 75310 (Dec. 2, 2010). In 
the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE described ``Sabbath mode'' as a mode 
in which the automatic shutoff is overridden to allow for warming of 
pre-cooked foods during such periods as the Jewish Sabbath. 77 FR 
65942, 65952. In its analysis leading up to the October 2012 Final 
Rule, DOE assigned the hours for which the cooking product is in 
Sabbath mode as active mode hours, because the energy use of those 
hours is similar to the energy use of the active mode. 75 FR 75290, 
75311. DOE estimated an equivalent of 8.6 annual hours in Sabbath mode, 
based on the number of annual work-free hours and

[[Page 51527]]

the percentage of U.S. households that observe kosher practices. Id. at 
75 FR 75309. In that rule, DOE scaled the 8.6 hours according to the 
number of annual cooking cycles, the number of cooking products per 
household, and an assumption that a cooking top would only be used on 
the Sabbath a quarter of the time. Id. This resulted in 2.2 hours per 
year for standalone cooking tops, and 8.8 hours per year for 
conventional ranges.
    In 2010, DOE estimated that the total number of cooking top cycles 
per year was 211 (see section III.J.1 of this document), the average 
cycle time was 1 hour, and cooking tops spent 2.1 annual hours in 
Sabbath mode. Id. Therefore, in the October 2012 Final Rule, DOE 
specified that the number of annual active-mode hours was 213.2 and the 
number of annual combined low-power mode hours was 8,546.9. 77 FR 
65942, 65994.
    In the December 2016 Final Rule, DOE observed that for combined 
cooking products, the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption 
could be measured only for the combined cooking product and not the 
individual components. 81 FR 91418, 91423. For a combined cooking 
product, DOE calculated the annual combined low-power mode of the 
conventional cooking top component. This involved allocating a portion 
of the combined low-power mode energy consumption measured for the 
combined cooking product to the conventional cooking top component 
using the estimated annual cooking hours for the given components in 
the combined cooking product. Id.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the estimate of 
the annual combined low-power mode hours for standalone cooking tops 
and for the cooking top component of combined cooking products. This 
involved using more recent estimates for the number of annual cooking 
top cycles and the representative cycle time. 86 FR 60974, 60995. As 
discussed in section III.J.1 of this document, DOE is using a value of 
418 annual cooking top cycles for all cooking tops.
    For representative average cooking top cycle time, in the November 
2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed data provided by AHAM. The data summarized the 
cooking patterns of 3,508 consumers with connected cooking products, 
based on information collected via their network functions. Id. 
Although the data did not identify specific geographical locations, 
AHAM indicated the sample of consumers represented a distribution of 
connected cooking product owners across the United States. This AHAM 
data set showed an average cooking top cycle time of 18 minutes. 
However, as DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR, it is concerned that 
because higher-income households tend to purchase connected cooking 
products, usage patterns of those consumers may not be representative 
of the usage patterns for all U.S. consumers. Id.
    DOE also analyzed field-metered data that showed a median cycle 
time of 31 minutes. Id. DOE expects the distribution of usage patterns 
among these homes are more representative of consumer habits in the 
United States as a whole because the metering was not limited to 
premium products. In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to calculate 
the number of cooking top annual active mode hours per installation 
configuration by multiplying the annual cycles estimated from the 2015 
RECS by the 31-minute median cycle time, and then adding the 
appropriate number of Sabbath mode hours.\77\ Id. DOE estimated the 
number of annual active mode hours for the overall cooking product 
using five additional values. The first additional value was the number 
of cooking tops per household, which was determined to be 1.02 using 
the 2015 RECS. Second was the annual number of conventional oven cycles 
conducted per year on combined cooking products, which was determined 
to be 145 using the 2015 RECS. Third was the number of microwave oven 
cycles per year, which was determined to be 627 using the 2015 RECS. 
Fourth was the average cycle time for a conventional oven, which was 
assumed to be 1 hour. Fifth was the average cycle time for a microwave 
oven, which was assumed to be 6 minutes. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Given the value of 1.02 cooking tops per household 
determined using 2015 RECS, and using the same 25-percent assumption 
of the percent of time a cooking top is left on during the Sabbath 
(as opposed to a conventional oven), DOE assumed 2.2 hours per year 
in Sabbath mode for standalone cooking tops and for combined cooking 
products comprised of a microwave oven and a cooking top; and 8.8 
hours per year in Sabbath mode for combined cooking products that 
include a conventional oven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE proposed to estimate the annual combined low-power mode hours 
for the overall product for each installation configuration by 
subtracting the resulting annual active mode hours from 8,760 annual 
hours. Id. Finally, DOE calculated the percentages of combined lower-
power mode hours assigned to the cooking top component by determining 
the proportion of overall active mode hours that are associated with 
the cooking top component of the combined cooking product. Id. The 
results for DOE's combined low-power mode usage factors and resulting 
cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours proposed in the 
November 2021 NOPR are shown in Table III.4.

              Table III.4--Combined Low-Power Mode Usage Factors Proposed in the November 2021 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Product type                            Overall product                   Cooking top
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Percentage of
                                                                                      overall
                                                                                   combined low-
                                                    Active mode    Combined low-    power mode     Combined low-
                                                  hours per year    power mode         hours        power mode
                                                                  hours per year   allocated to   hours per year
                                                                                    the cooking
                                                                                      top (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standalone cooking top..........................             216           8,544             100           8,544
Conventional range (cooking top + conventional               368           8,392              60           5,004
 oven)..........................................
Cooking top + microwave oven....................             279           8,481              77           6,560
Cooking top + conventional oven + microwave oven             431           8,329              51           4,228
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requested comment on its proposed usage factors and annual 
hours for cooking top combined low-power mode, as well as on any of the 
underlying assumptions. Id.

[[Page 51528]]

    DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed usage 
factors and annual hours for cooking top combined low-power mode, or on 
any of the underlying assumptions, except for comments about the number 
of annual cycles, as discussed in section III.J.1 of this document.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the 
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed usage factors and annual hours for 
cooking top combined low-power mode.
3. Annual Combined Low-Power Mode Energy
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed that the annual energy in 
combined low-power mode for a cooking top be calculated as follows. 
Multiply the power consumption of the overall cooking product in 
standby and/or off mode (see sections III.I.1 and III.I.2 of this 
document) by the number of annual combined low-power mode hours for the 
cooking top or cooking top component of a combined cooking product (see 
section III.J.2 of this document). 86 FR 60974, 60995-60996. As DOE has 
done in the test procedures for other appliances that can have either 
an inactive (standby) mode, an off mode, or both, DOE proposed that the 
total number of cooking top annual combined low-power mode hours be 
allocated to each of inactive mode or off mode as illustrated in Table 
III.5. Id. at 86 FR 60996.

  Table III.5--Allocation of Cooking Top Combined Low-Power Mode Hours
                       From the November 2021 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Types of low-power mode(s)        Allocation to    Allocation to off
             available                inactive mode           mode
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both inactive and off mode........                0.5                0.5
Inactive mode only................                  1                  0
Off mode only.....................                  0                  1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requested comment on its proposed allocation of combined low-
power mode hours. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed allocation 
of combined low-power mode hours.
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes, consistent with the 
November 2021 NOPR, its proposed allocation of combined low-power mode 
hours.
4. Integrated Annual Energy Consumption
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define the integrated 
annual energy consumption (``IAEC'') for each tested cooking top. 86 FR 
60974, 60996. For electric cooking tops, IAEC was defined in kilowatt-
hours (``kWh'') per year and is equal to the sum of the annual active 
mode energy and the annual combined low-power mode energy. Id. For gas 
cooking tops, IAEC was defined in kilo-British thermal units (``kBtu'') 
per year and is equal to the sum of the annual active mode gas energy 
consumption, the annual active mode electric energy consumption 
(converted into kBtu per year), and the annual combined low-power mode 
energy (converted into kBtu per year). Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed definition 
of IAEC.
    In this final rule, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 
2021 NOPR, its proposed definition of IAEC.
5. Annual Energy Consumption and Annual Cost
    Section 430.23(i) of title 10 of the CFR lists the test procedures 
for measuring the energy consumption of cooking products. As there are 
no current test procedures for conventional cooking tops, 10 CFR 
430.23(i) contains provisions only for microwave ovens.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to renumber the existing 
microwave oven paragraph as 10 CFR 430.23(i)(1) and to add new 
paragraphs (i)(2) through (i)(6) containing provisions for measuring 
the electrical energy consumption, gas energy consumption, and annual 
cost of conventional cooking tops. 86 FR 60974, 60996.
    New paragraph (i)(2) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would 
provide the means of calculating the integrated annual energy 
consumption for a conventional cooking top, whether electric or gas, 
including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking 
product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kWh per year 
for electric cooking tops, and to the nearest 1 kBtu per year for gas 
cooking tops. Id.
    New paragraph (i)(3) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would 
provide the means of calculating the total annual gas energy 
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, including any 
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product. Id. 
The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kBtu per year. Id.
    New paragraph (i)(4) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would 
provide the means of calculating the total annual electrical energy 
consumption for a conventional cooking top, whether electric or gas, 
including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking 
product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest 1 kWh per year. 
Id. The total annual electrical energy consumption of a conventional 
electric cooking top would equal the integrated annual energy 
consumption of the conventional electric cooking top, as determined in 
paragraph (i)(2). Id.
    New paragraph (i)(5) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would 
provide the means of calculating the estimated annual operating cost 
corresponding to the energy consumption of a conventional cooking top, 
including any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking 
product. Id. The result would be rounded to the nearest dollar per 
year. Id.
    New paragraph (i)(6) as proposed in the November 2021 NOPR would 
allow the definition of other useful measures of energy consumption for 
conventional cooking tops that the Secretary determines are likely to 
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions and that are derived 
from the application of appendix I1. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposed provisions for measuring 
annual energy consumption and estimated annual cost. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed provisions 
for measuring annual energy consumption and estimated annual cost.
    In this final rule, DOE finalizes, consistent with the November 
2021 NOPR, its proposed provisions for measuring annual energy 
consumption and estimated annual cost.

K. Alternative Proposals

    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it was aware of 
alternative approaches to the proposed cooking top test procedure and 
listed alternative approaches that were being considered

[[Page 51529]]

by stakeholders. 86 FR 60974, 60996. DOE added that it could consider 
adopting these alternative proposals if sufficient data were available 
to evaluate whether such test procedures are reasonably designed to 
produce test results which measure energy use of conventional cooking 
tops during a representative average use cycle or period of use and are 
not unduly burdensome to conduct. Id. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In 
this final rule, DOE is not adopting any of the alternative proposals.
1. Replacing the Simmering Test With a Simmering Usage Factor
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE considered an approach to simplify 
the test procedure such that it requires only a single test per cooking 
zone. 86 FR 60974, 60997. This test could entail a simple heat-up test 
at the maximum power setting until the water temperature reaches a 
threshold temperature, such as 90 [deg]C or the target turndown 
temperature. A simmering usage factor could then be applied to the 
measured energy use to scale the energy of the heat-up only test to a 
value that is representative of typical consumer usage including a 
simmering phase.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE presented an initial analysis of its 
test data suggesting that for electric cooking tops, the simmering 
energy may be a consistent fraction of the heat-up energy for each 
heating technology type. Id. However, for gas cooking tops, the 
potential simmering usage factor is more variable by individual cooking 
top and cooking zone.
    DOE noted that if it were to adopt a test procedure that uses a 
simmering usage factor, the usage factor would need to be based on test 
data and would need to be representative of a tested simmering period 
on multiple types of products. Id. DOE tentatively determined in the 
November 2021 NOPR, based on the available data, that no such single 
simmering usage factor by heating technology can be defined, and did 
not propose to pursue this approach. Id.
    DOE requested data on the representativeness of a simmering usage 
factor across technology types. Id.
    The Joint Commenters commented in support of DOE's proposal to 
include a simmering test for electric and gas cooking top test 
procedures, stating that it is representative of how consumers will be 
using the products. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 3)
    The Joint Commenters agreed with DOE's tentative determination that 
the use of a representative simmer usage factor to determine simmering 
energy would be difficult to define due to the variability of cooking 
tops and cooking zones, stating that a simmering usage factor would not 
accomplish the same goals as a simmering test. (Joint Commenters, No. 
11 at pp. 3-4) The Joint Commenters commented that the inclusion of a 
simmering test may change the relative ranking of products compared to 
a heat-up only test. (Joint Commenters, No. 11 at p. 4) The Joint 
Commenters commented that if a usage factor were applied instead of 
running a simmering test, a consistent factor would be used for each 
technology type to scale up the energy consumption value. (Id.) The 
Joint Commenters stated this would fail to reflect differences in 
simmering energy between different models of the same technology type. 
(Id.)
    NEEA commented in support of DOE's proposal to proceed with a test 
procedure that includes a simmering portion rather than applying a 
simmering usage factor, stating that simmer energy cannot be accurately 
estimated through the application of a universal usage factor. (NEEA, 
No. 15 at p. 2) NEEA commented that a Food Service Technology Center 
report illustrated that simmer rates vary across different appliances 
and do not necessarily correlate with input rate or boil efficiency. 
(Id.) NEEA commented that attempting to apply a universal usage factor 
would oversimplify and misrepresent the range of simmering energies 
that cooking appliances might exhibit. (Id.) NEEA commented that any 
attempt to simplify the process of collecting simmering energy data 
would only be able to occur after a rigorous sample of simmering energy 
data indicates a clear relationship. (Id.)
    The CA IOUs commented in support of DOE's decision to use an actual 
simmering test rather than a simmering usage factor. (CA IOUs, No. 14 
at p. 7) The CA IOUs commented that it is unlikely that a single 
simmering usage factor would accurately apply to all cooking tops. 
(Id.)
    AHAM commented that DOE's tentative determination that a single 
simmering usage factor by heating technology cannot be defined was 
based on only minimal evaluation. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 16) AHAM 
commented that it is collecting data to determine a simmering usage 
factor and stated that DOE should wait until its data is available 
before it concludes that no single simmering usage factor by heating 
technology can be defined. (Id.) AHAM commented that a single simmering 
usage factor may or may not properly encompass variation but stated 
that other techniques may be useful such as multivariable extrapolation 
based on factors like cooking zone size, cooking zone rating and/or 
technology types. (Id.) AHAM commented that the simmering portion of 
the test introduces the most variation and adds the most burden and 
stated that a calculation factor would help reduce variation and 
burden. (Id.) AHAM commented that DOE should consider a simmering usage 
factor in order to meet EPCA's requirements given the concerns with 
variation and test burden. (Id.) AHAM commented that it agrees that it 
is unlikely that a single factor could be applied across different 
technologies and stated that this is why its testing is investigating 
other techniques as listed above. (Id.) AHAM commented that developing 
a multivariable extrapolation would involve testing of multiple 
technologies with cooking zones of different sizes and ratings, and 
then creating an equation to estimate simmering energy consumption 
based on data for each technology, size, and rating. (Id.) AHAM 
commented that the measured boiling energy consumption could then be 
added to the calculated simmering energy consumption for a final 
result. (Id.) AHAM commented that its test plan includes these 
additional techniques, and that DOE should wait for those results 
before it can reach a conclusion that a calculation methodology is not 
representative. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that the use of a simmering usage factor would 
reduce test burden and stated that a simmering usage factor would allow 
for a 6-minute test for each cooking zone without a turndown, compared 
to what AHAM calculated as 475 minutes (7.9 hours) for the proposed 
test procedure (using coil and induction cooking top testing as an 
example). (AHAM, No. 12 at pp. 16-17) AHAM presented a table supporting 
this value of 475 minutes per cooking zone to conduct the proposed test 
procedure based on the summation of 300 seconds (5 minutes) of 
overshoot testing; 2,100 seconds of pre-selection testing (a 10-minute 
test run on 3-4 settings, for a total of around 35 minutes); 3,000 
seconds of simmering testing (25 minutes each for the minimum-above 
threshold and maximum-below threshold settings); 1,500 seconds (25 
minutes) of likely additional simmering testing due to various issues; 
and 21,600 seconds of cooldown time (60 minutes between each test, for 
a total of 6 cooldown periods). (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17)
    DOE has determined through its testing that a test procedure 
including a simmering test produces the most representative results for 
the energy

[[Page 51530]]

consumption of each conventional cooking top basic model and is not 
unduly burdensome to conduct. Use of a simmering usage factor in lieu 
of a simmering test, as suggested by AHAM, relies upon the inaccurate 
assumption that the energy use profile of every cooking top is similar 
to that of other cooking tops throughout a representative usage cycle, 
which includes both a heat-up and a simmering phase. However, these 
profiles differ according to the specific design and performance 
characteristics among various models (e.g., electric heating 
technology, shape and size of the electric coil, grate material and 
geometry, gas burner flame turndown behavior and relationship to the 
grate, etc.). DOE has observed throughout its testing programs that the 
ratio of energy use during the simmering phase to energy use during the 
heat-up phase varies between cooking tops and even between heating 
elements or burners on a single cooking top. The use of a single 
simmering usage factor would impede the ability for the test procedure 
to differentiate between various energy-saving simmering strategies 
among different conventional cooking tops. The use of a single 
simmering factor or other similar analytic approach could 
disincentivize manufacturers from innovating new energy-saving 
simmering strategies. Because the use of a simmering usage factor would 
not capture the differences between various simmering strategies, it 
would also, therefore, produce results that are not representative of 
the consumer usage of each conventional cooking top basic model as 
compared to a test that includes a simmering phase.
    Regarding AHAM's comment on test burden, DOE agrees with AHAM that 
a test procedure that includes only a heat-up phase would take less 
time to conduct. However, as discussed, this type of test would not 
produce results that are representative of consumer usage. Further, 
AHAM's calculation of 7.9 hours per cooking zone for the test procedure 
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR overcounts the amount of cooling 
periods needed. A cooldown period is needed only before an overshoot or 
simmering test. It is not needed before or in-between the pre-selection 
tests, as discussed in section III.D.2.d of this document. Using the 
values provided by AHAM while removing the unnecessary cooling periods 
would result in a total time of 295 minutes, or 4.9 hours,\78\ of 
testing per cooking zone (except for the last cooking zone under test, 
which would require only 3.9 hours of testing).\79\ DOE has determined 
that the conduct and duration of the test procedure established in this 
final rule is not unduly burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 295 minutes calculated as 5 minutes of overshoot testing + 
35 minutes of pre-selection testing + 60 minutes of cooldown + 25 
minutes of simmering testing for the minimum-above-threshold setting 
+ 60 minutes of cooldown + 25 minutes of simmering testing for the 
maximum-below-threshold setting + 60 minutes of cooldown before 
testing the next cooking zone (except for the last cooking zone 
under test) + a buffer of 25 minutes to account for potential 
additional simmering testing = 295 minutes (or 235 for the last 
cooking zone under test).
    \79\ For a unit with four cooking zones, this is a total of 18.7 
hours of testing. This duration is similar to the November 2021 NOPR 
value of 17.5 hours of testing. For a unit with six cooking zones, 
this is a total of 28.5 hours of testing. See section III.N of this 
document for further discussion of test procedure costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is 
not adopting a test methodology that includes the use of a simmering 
usage factor. To the extent that commenters in the future may wish to 
have DOE evaluate methodology for a conventional cooking top test 
procedure without a simmering test, they should submit data and 
analysis on the record for DOE to consider. In order to ensure that the 
test method is representative of consumer usage, any alternative method 
would need to provide an estimated energy consumption specific to the 
conventional cooking top model under test, rather than yielding an 
approximate value by means of a generic approach that applies equally 
for all models. Any such alternative method would need to produce 
equivalent estimated energy consumption results and associated product 
rankings as the test procedure adopted in this final rule.
2. Changing the Setting Used To Calculate Simmering Energy
    IEC 60350-2:2021 defines the simmering setting according to the 
temperature characteristics of the water load at that power setting. In 
the November 2021 NOPR, DOE considered alternatively defining the 
simmering setting according to the power supplied at each power 
setting. 86 FR 60974, 60997. For instance, DOE considered defining the 
simmering setting as the lowest power setting that is at or above 25 
percent of maximum power (or maximum heat input rate for gas cooking 
tops). Id.
    To the extent that consumers choose a simmering power setting based 
on knob position (or setting number) rather than by directly or 
indirectly monitoring the temperature variation of the food or water in 
the cookware, this potential alternative could yield more 
representative results than the current proposal. DOE previously 
established a power-level-based test procedure as part of the October 
2012 Final Rule. 77 FR 65942.
    DOE requested data on the representativeness of a simmering setting 
based on a percentage of the maximum power setting. 86 FR 60974, 60997.
    The CA IOUs commented that they agree with using the temperature-
based test conditions rather than choosing a simmer power setting based 
on knob position and stated that this results in more comparable and 
representative results across different units. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 
7)
    DOE did not receive any data on the representativeness of a 
simmering setting based on a percentage of the maximum power setting. 
For the reasons discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, in this final 
rule, DOE is not defining the simmering setting based on the knob 
position or the power level of the potential simmering setting.
3. Industry Test Procedures
    DOE is aware that AHAM is developing test procedures for electric 
and gas cooking tops as part of its Task Force efforts. Although AHAM's 
test procedures had not been finalized at the time of publication of 
the November 2021 NOPR, the provisions in the draft test procedures as 
of September 1, 2021, were substantially the same as those specified in 
the November 2021 NOPR. DOE also stated in the November 2021 NOPR that 
if AHAM were to finalize its test procedures before DOE publishes a 
test procedure final rule for conventional cooking tops, DOE could 
consider incorporating the AHAM procedure by reference, instead of 
using the language adopted in this final rule. 86 FR 60974, 60997.
    AHAM has not finalized its test procedures as of the publication of 
this final rule.
    AHAM commented that since the August 2020 Final Rule, it has been 
in the process of developing test procedures for electric and gas 
cooking tops that decrease variation and test burden. (AHAM, No. 12 at 
pp. 9-10) AHAM commented that it has been working on a fast track in 
recognition that DOE is interested in moving this test forward and 
stated that it has been sharing its insights with DOE throughout the 
process and plans to share raw data when it becomes available. (AHAM, 
No. 12 at p. 10) AHAM commented that it is in the process of conducting 
testing at a third-party laboratory in two separate

[[Page 51531]]

locations to assess possible test modifications. (Id.) AHAM commented 
that its data may not provide a complete picture of reproducibility but 
stated that it will be relevant to DOE's proposed test procedure 
amendments. (Id.) AHAM commented that the completion of this testing 
was a central reason why AHAM requested a comment period extension on 
the November 2021 NOPR to March 31, 2022. (Id.) AHAM commented that it 
was not able to meet that deadline but stated that it plans to file 
supplemental comments on the proposed test procedure with DOE, stating 
that it hopes the testing will be complete by September 2022. (Id.) 
AHAM commented that its members are also considering a scaled-down test 
plan whereby AHAM could complete testing by July 2022, and that DOE 
will receive an update if the test plan is revised. (Id.)
    AHAM commented that the third-party laboratory conducting AHAM's 
testing has faced numerous obstacles, including difficulty in procuring 
adequate test vessels, difficulty in executing the technical procedure 
due to vagueness, logistical issues at the test laboratory, and COVID-
19 outbreaks at the testing facility, resulting in closures. (AHAM, No. 
12 at p. 10) AHAM commented that the certified test laboratory found 
certain provisions of the test procedure vague, stating that this 
caused delays. (Id.) AHAM commented that, according to its 
interpretation, even DOE had to disregard some of the data collected 
because of the complicated test setup involved, stating that 25 percent 
of the results were marked ``n/a'' in the December 2021 NODA. (AHAM, 
No. 12 at pp. 10-11) AHAM commented that DOE should allow time for 
AHAM's testing to be completed in order to ensure DOE defines a test 
that is accurate, repeatable, reproducible, representative, and not 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 11)
    AHAM commented that one of the reasons for this delay in its test 
data collection was that the laboratory experienced longer cooldown 
periods for electric units than anticipated. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 10) 
AHAM commented that the test laboratory, which AHAM stated has 
considerable experience running DOE test procedures, found that testing 
of a single heating element is unlikely to be completed in a single 8-
hour shift for certain technologies. (Id.) AHAM commented that this is 
an indication that the procedure is unduly burdensome to complete, as 
the test requires constant technician interaction and monitoring. (Id.)
    DOE appreciates AHAM's efforts to develop test procedures for 
electric and gas cooking tops and notes that it has not yet received 
any data from AHAM on this issue. DOE encourages AHAM to send any data 
when it becomes available. DOE notes that it has provided opportunity 
for stakeholders to provide test results, including two extensions of 
the comment period on the November 2021 NOPR (see section III.A of this 
document). As discussed in this final rule, DOE has determined that the 
established test procedure is reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy use of conventional cooking tops during a 
representative period of use and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. 
DOE continues to welcome AHAM's data and will consider it in the 
ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking.
    In response to AHAM's assumption that the ``n/a'' notation on the 
2021 Round Robin data presented in the December 2021 NODA represented 
disregarded test data, DOE clarifies that these ``n/a'' notations 
represent units that were not tested at particular laboratories (``not 
applicable''). As stated in this document and in the December 2021 
NODA, each unit was tested at 3 laboratories. 86 FR 71406, 71407. Due 
to a time constraint, one of the units in the test sample was not 
tested at Laboratory B, but was instead tested at Laboratory E, 
resulting in the notation of ``n/a'' because that unit did not have 
test results for Laboratory B. Id. Similarly, the units that were 
tested at Laboratory B were not tested at Laboratory E, resulting in 
the notation of ``n/a'' for those tests too.
    DOE interprets AHAM's comment regarding longer-than-anticipated 
cooldown periods for electric units to apply to units that AHAM's test 
laboratory has observed to take over 2 hours to return to ambient 
temperature. DOE notes that, in its experience, a cooldown is typically 
much shorter than 2 hours. Based on the experience of two of the 
laboratories that participated in the 2021 Round Robin, the cooldown of 
a unit typically ranges from 20 minutes to 1 hour. DOE reiterates that 
the test procedure allows active cooling of the unit under test, and 
that some effective strategies have included the use of a fan blowing 
air over a wet cloth laid on the cooking top surface to improve 
evaporative cooling and the use of a fan blowing air directly into the 
burner cavity. In response to AHAM's assertion that a single cooking 
zone is unlikely to be completed in a single 8-hour shift for certain 
technologies, DOE's testing experience indicates that the test 
procedure can be completed in under 5 hours on average per cooking zone 
for any technology.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See section III.K.1 for a detailed explanation of DOE's 
calculation of the estimated test time per cooking zone of 4.9 
hours, based on AHAM's comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Representations

1. Sampling Plan
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to maintain the sampling 
plan requirements for cooking products in 10 CFR 429.23(a), which 
specify that for each basic model of cooking product a sample of 
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that 
any represented value for which consumers would favor lower values 
shall be greater than or equal to the higher of the mean of the sample 
or the upper 97.5 percent confidence limit of the true mean divided by 
1.05. 86 FR 60974, 60997.
    DOE sought comment on the proposed method for establishing a 
sampling plan. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding the proposed method for 
establishing a sampling plan.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See section III.F of this document for discussion of a 
comment from Samsung regarding certification and compliance 
tolerances for gas cooking tops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, DOE finalizes its proposed sampling plan, 
consistent with the November 2021 NOPR.
2. Convertible Cooking Appliances
    DOE defines a convertible cooking appliance as any kitchen range 
and oven which is a household cooking appliance designed by the 
manufacturer to be changed in service from use with natural gas to use 
with LP-gas, and vice versa, by incorporating in the appliance 
convertible orifices for the main gas burners and a convertible gas 
pressure regulator. 10 CFR 430.2.
    In the May 1978 Final Rule, DOE established a requirement for two 
estimated annual operating costs for convertible cooking appliances: 
one reflecting testing with natural gas and another reflecting testing 
with propane. 43 FR 20108, 20110. DOE allowed manufacturers to use the 
amount of energy consumed during the test with natural gas to determine 
the estimated annual operating cost of the appliance reflecting testing 
with propane. Id. DOE provided this allowance based on test data that 
showed that conventional cooking products tested with propane yielded 
slightly higher efficiencies than the same products tested with natural 
gas. Id.
    In the version of 10 CFR 430.23 finalized in the December 2016 
Final Rule, convertible cooking tops were

[[Page 51532]]

required to be tested using both natural gas and propane, although the 
version of appendix I finalized in that same rule listed the test gas 
as natural gas or propane. 81 FR 91418, 91448. DOE does not require 
testing both natural gas and propane for any other convertible 
appliances.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that all gas 
cooking tops be tested using the default test gas (i.e., the 
appropriate test gas given the as-shipped configuration of the cooking 
top) and proposed not to require testing any convertible cooking top 
using both natural gas and propane. 86 FR 60974, 60998.
    DOE further proposed to delete the definition of convertible 
cooking appliance in 10 CFR 430.2, since such distinction would no 
longer be needed and may cause confusion. Id.
    DOE requested comment on its proposal to test all gas cooking tops 
using the default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped configuration 
of the unit. Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal to delete 
the definition of convertible cooking appliance from 10 CFR 430.2. Id.
    AHAM commented in support of DOE's proposal to test all gas cooking 
tops using the default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped 
configuration of the unit and stated that it understands this proposal 
to be consistent with test procedures for other product categories, 
such as clothes dryers. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17)
    For the reasons discussed, DOE finalizes its proposal, consistent 
with the November 2021 NOPR, to test all gas cooking tops using the 
default test gas, as defined by the as-shipped configuration of the 
unit and to delete the definition of convertible cooking appliance from 
10 CFR 430.2.

M. Reporting

    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE did not propose to require reporting 
of cooking top energy use until such time as compliance is required 
with a performance-based energy conservation standard, should such a 
standard be established. 86 FR 60974, 60998. DOE proposed to add an 
introductory note to new appendix I1 to that effect. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding its proposed 
introductory note to new appendix I1.
    In this final rule, DOE finalizes its introductory note to appendix 
I1, consistent with the November 2021 NOPR.

N. Test Procedure Costs

    In this document, DOE establishes a new test procedure for 
conventional cooking tops in a new appendix I1. The test procedure 
adopts the latest version of the relevant industry standard with 
modifications to adapt the test method to gas cooking tops (including 
specifying gas supply tolerances), includes measurement of standby mode 
and off mode energy use, updates certain test conditions, and provides 
certain clarifying language. If manufacturers voluntarily choose to 
make representations regarding the energy efficiency of conventional 
cooking tops before such time as use of the test procedure becomes 
mandatory to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards, 
manufacturers would be required to test according to the DOE test 
procedure.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE initially determined that the 
proposed new appendix I1, if finalized, would result in added costs to 
conventional cooking top manufacturers, if manufacturers choose to make 
efficiency representations for the conventional cooking tops that they 
manufacture. 86 FR 60974, 60998. Additionally, manufacturers would 
incur testing costs if DOE were to establish a performance-based energy 
conservation standard for conventional cooking tops.
    To estimate third-party laboratory costs in the November 2021 NOPR, 
DOE evaluated quotes from test laboratories on the price of conducting 
a similar conventional cooking top test procedure. Id. at 86 FR 60999. 
DOE then averaged these prices to arrive at an estimate of what the 
manufacturers would have to spend to test their product using a third-
party test laboratory. Id. Using these quotes, DOE estimated that it 
would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $3,000 
to conduct a single test on a conventional cooking top unit, if this 
test was conducted at a third-party laboratory test facility. Id.
    To estimate in-house testing cost, DOE estimated in the November 
2021 NOPR, based on its testing experience, that testing a single 
conventional cooking top unit to the proposed test procedure required 
approximately 17.5 hours of a technician's time. Id.
    DOE requested comment on any aspect of the estimated initial 
testing costs detailed in the November 2021 NOPR. Id. DOE also 
requested comment on any aspect of the estimated recurring testing 
costs associated with conventional cooking tops detailed in the 
November 2021 NOPR. Id.
    AHAM commented in response to the November 2021 NOPR that the 
cumulative regulatory burden associated with different energy 
conservation standards and test procedure rulemakings is potentially 
significant. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 9) AHAM noted specifically that 
manufacturers of cooking products, at the time of writing, were in the 
position of responding to five open rulemakings with limited staff to 
do so. (Id.)
    AHAM also commented that the third-party test laboratory that it is 
working with has updated its test cost quote to $483 per simmering 
test, for an estimated $3,900 per four-cooking zone cooking top. (AHAM, 
No. 12 at p. 11)
    As discussed in detail in section III.K.1 of this document, AHAM 
commented that the proposed test procedure requires 7.9 hours per 
cooking zone to conduct. (AHAM, No. 12 at p. 17)
    Were DOE to establish energy conservation standards for 
conventional cooking tops, manufacturers would be required to test 
according to the finalized test procedure. DOE recognizes the potential 
manufacturer burden of multiple simultaneous rulemakings and would 
evaluate the cumulative regulatory burden in future energy conservation 
standards rulemakings related to cooking products as provided by its 
established processes.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See 10 CFR part 430 subpart C appendix A section 13(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, DOE reviewed its third-party test laboratory 
costs and test time estimates, to provide the best estimate of the 
total cost to manufacturers if DOE were to implement performance-based 
standards. DOE is further updating its estimates to reflect the range 
of typical cooking tops on the market and is providing values for both 
a cooking top with four cooking zones and one with six cooking zones. 
In subsequent calculations, DOE used an average of the value for the 
cooking top with four cooking zones and the cooking top with six 
cooking zones, representative of the fact that DOE determined through a 
market analysis that cooking tops have an average of five cooking 
zones.
    DOE has reviewed additional test quotes since the November 2021 
NOPR, including the one submitted by AHAM in its comments, and has 
determined that it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers 
approximately $3,200 to conduct a single test on a conventional cooking 
top unit with four cooking zones, if this test was conducted at a 
third-party laboratory test facility. The same test would cost 
conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $5,000 on a 
conventional cooking top unit with six cooking zones.

[[Page 51533]]

In the remainder of this document, DOE uses an average value of $4,100 
per test.
    As discussed in section III.K.1 of this document, DOE has updated 
its estimated test time per cooking zone to 4.9 hours, except for the 
last cooking zone under test which would require only 3.9 hours. As a 
result, DOE estimates that testing a single conventional cooking top 
unit to appendix I1 requires approximately 18.7 hours of a technician's 
time for four cooking zones and 28.5 hours for six cooking zones. In 
the remainder of this document, DOE uses an average value of 23.6 hours 
per test.
    Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (``BLS'') 
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for 
mechanical engineering technologists and technicians is $30.47.\83\ 
Additionally, DOE used data from BLS's Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation to estimate the percent that wages comprise the total 
compensation for an employee. DOE estimates that wages make up 70.5 
percent of the total compensation for private industry employees.\84\ 
Therefore, DOE estimates that the total hourly compensation (including 
all fringe benefits) of a technician performing the testing is 
$43.22.\85\ Using these labor rates and the updated average time 
estimate of 23.6 hours per cooking top, DOE estimates that it would 
cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately $1,020 to 
conduct a single test on a conventional cooking top unit, if this test 
was conducted at an in-house test facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ``17-3027 Mechanical 
Engineering Technologists and Technicians'' from the most recent BLS 
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (May 2021) to estimate 
the hourly wage rate of a technician assumed to perform this 
testing. See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173027.htm. Last accessed on 
April 4, 2022.
    \84\ DOE used the December 2021 ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation'' to estimate that for ``Private Industry Workers,'' 
``Wages and Salaries'' are 70.3 percent of the total employee 
compensation. See www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. Last 
accessed on April 4, 2022.
    \85\ $30.47 / 0.705 = $43.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the assumptions discussed in this section, DOE estimates that 
it would cost conventional cooking top manufacturers approximately 
$2,040 per basic model, if tested at an in-house test facility and 
approximately $8,200 per basic model, if tested at a third-party 
laboratory test facility.
    DOE also estimates that conventional cooking top manufacturers 
would need to purchase test vessels in accordance with new appendix I1. 
DOE estimates that each set of test vessels costs approximately $6,000.

O. Compliance Date

    The effective date for the adopted test procedure will be 30 days 
after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. EPCA 
prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and energy 
use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, 
must be made in accordance with that new test procedure, beginning 180 
days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) EPCA provides an allowance for individual 
manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-day period if 
the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in meeting the deadline. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an extension, petitions must be 
filed with DOE no later than 60 days before the end of the 180-day 
period and must detail how the manufacturer will experience undue 
hardship. (Id.)
    As previously stated, no performance-based energy conservation 
standards are prescribed for conventional cooking tops. Manufacturers 
are not required to test according to the DOE test procedure unless 
manufacturers voluntarily choose to make representations as to the 
energy efficiency or energy use of a conventional cooking top. Were DOE 
to establish energy conservation standards for conventional cooking 
tops, manufacturers would be required to test according to the 
finalized test procedure at such time as compliance would be required 
with the established standards.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (``E.O.'')12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires 
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a 
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify 
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to 
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office 
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques 
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might 
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is 
consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a 
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under 
E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for 
any final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a 
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the 
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking 
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available 
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and 
policies published on February 19, 2003.
    The following sections detail DOE's FRFA for this test procedure 
rulemaking:

[[Page 51534]]

1. Descriptions of Reasons for Action
    DOE is establishing test procedures for conventional cooking tops. 
Establishing test procedures for conventional cooking tops assists DOE 
in fulfilling its statutory deadline for amending energy conservation 
standards for cooking products that achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Additionally, establishing test 
procedures for conventional cooking tops allows manufacturers to 
produce measurements of energy use that are representative of an 
average use cycle and uniform for all manufacturers.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    DOE has undertaken this rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6292(a)(10), which authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment, 
including the cooking products that are the subject of this rulemaking.
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE has recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business 
manufacturers of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE used the 
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small 
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. The size 
standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'') code as well as by industry description and are available 
at www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing 
cooking tops is classified under NAICS 335220, ``major household 
appliance manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees 
or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business for this 
category. DOE used available public information to identify potential 
small manufacturers. DOE accessed the Compliance Certification Database 
\86\ (CCD), the Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System \87\ 
(MAEDbS), and the National Resources Canada database \88\ (NRCan) to 
create a list of companies that import or otherwise manufacture the 
products covered by this final rule. Once DOE created a list of 
potential manufacturers, DOE used market research tools to determine 
whether any met the SBA's definition of a small entity--based on the 
total number of employees for each company including parent, 
subsidiary, and sister entities--and gather annual revenue estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification 
Management System, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
    \87\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance 
Efficiency Database System, available at: https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx.
    \88\ Natural Resources Canada searchable product list, available 
at: oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on DOE's analysis, DOE identified 43 companies potentially 
manufacturing cooking tops covered by this test procedure. DOE screened 
out companies that do not meet the small entity definition and, 
additionally, screened out companies that are largely or entirely 
foreign owned and operated. Of the 43 companies, 12 were identified as 
a small business. Of these 12 small businesses, seven were further 
identified--through a review of their websites and online 
documentation--to be original equipment manufacturers manufacturing 
covered cooking tops as opposed to rebranding covered cooking tops, 
integrating the covered cooking tops into some broader product 
offering, or producing cooking tops for commercial applications.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    Because there are currently no energy conservation standards for 
conventional cooking tops, DOE estimates that this test procedure would 
not require any manufacturer to incur any testing burden associated 
with the test procedure. DOE recognizes that energy conservation 
standards related to conventional cooking tops may be proposed or 
promulgated in the future and manufacturers would then be required to 
test all covered equipment in accordance with the test procedure once 
compliance with any standard is required. (See Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0013) Therefore, DOE is presenting the costs associated with 
testing equipment and procedure consistent with the requirements of the 
test procedure, as would be required to comply with any future energy 
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops.
    DOE observed that a number of the identified small businesses known 
to produce conventional cooking tops did not have cooking top models 
reflected in the publicly available CCD, MAEDbS, and NRCan databases. 
DOE undertook a review of each small business's website in order to 
develop an approximate model count. DOE estimated that the seven small 
businesses produced a total of 223 basic models of covered cooking 
tops, for a range of five to 126 basic models and an average of 
approximately 32 models per small business.
    DOE assumes that small businesses would contract with third party 
testing labs to test and certify their covered products. Given DOE's 
previously estimated cost of $8,200 to test and certify a single model, 
DOE estimates it will cost approximately $1,826,600 to test all 
identified models manufactured by small businesses for an average of 
approximately $261,228 per small business. DOE was able to identify 
annual revenue estimates for all small businesses. From these 
estimates, DOE determined that the estimated testing costs would 
represent less than 2 percent of estimated annual revenue for all but 
one small business--for which the cost is estimated to be somewhat over 
7 percent of its estimated annual revenue.
    In addition, DOE expects small manufacturers to redesign or 
introduce new models of cooking tops on the same three-year timeframe 
as the broader industry described previously. Using this redesign cycle 
timeframe and the test costs and model count estimates previously 
stated, DOE estimated that small businesses manufacturing conventional 
cooking tops would collectively incur approximately $609,533 in costs 
every year to test approximately 74 newly introduced or redesigned 
conventional cooking top models.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    DOE is required to review existing DOE test procedures for all 
covered products and equipment every 7 years. Additionally, DOE shall 
amend test procedures with respect to any covered product, if the 
Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately 
produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or 
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product type during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use, while not being 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(i)) DOE has 
determined that the DOE test procedure for conventional cooking tops 
established by this final rule will produce test results that measure 
cooking top energy use during a representative average use cycle or 
period of use without being unduly burdensome to conduct.
    In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE examined alternatives to the 
proposed test procedure, such as determining not to establish a 
performance-based test

[[Page 51535]]

procedure for conventional cooking tops or establishing prescriptive-
based test procedures for conventional cooking tops. DOE noted in the 
November 2021 NOPR that while not establishing performance-based test 
procedures or establishing prescriptive-based test procedures for 
conventional cooking tops would reduce the burden on small businesses, 
DOE must use test procedures to determine whether the products comply 
with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. 86 FR 61001. Since 
establishing performance-based test procedures for conventional cooking 
tops is necessary prior to establishing performance-based standards for 
conventional cooking tops, and DOE is required under EPCA to evaluate 
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking products, 
including conventional cooking tops, DOE tentatively concluded in the 
November 2021 NOPR that establishing performance-based test procedures 
supports DOE's authority to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE received no comments on its conclusions 
in the November 2021 NOPR and thus affirms its determination in this 
final rule that there are no better alternatives than the final test 
procedure to meet the agency's objectives to measure energy efficiency 
more accurately and to reduce burden on manufacturers.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to 
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain 
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of conventional cooking tops must certify to DOE that 
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test 
data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including 
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including 
conventional cooking tops. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The 
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved 
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for 
the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
    There is currently no performance-based energy conservation 
standard for conventional cooking tops, and the test procedure 
established by this final rule does not establish any reporting 
requirements at this time. Were certification data required for 
conventional cooking tops, DOE would consider such certification 
requirements and reporting for conventional cooking products under a 
separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. 
DOE would address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, 
as necessary.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE establishes a test procedure that it 
expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops. DOE has 
determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are 
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing 
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that 
adopting test procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer 
products and industrial equipment is consistent with activities 
identified in 10 CFR part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. 
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental 
impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final 
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition 
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on 
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses

[[Page 51536]]

other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine 
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. 
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the 
extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards 
of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant 
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information 
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which 
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; 
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where 
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the 
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and 
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE 
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal 
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or 
industry standards on competition.
    The new test procedure for conventional cooking tops adopted in 
this final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain 
sections of the following commercial standards: IEC 60350-2:2021, IEC 
62301 First Edition, and IEC 62301 Second Edition. DOE has evaluated 
these standards and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies 
with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it 
was developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, 
comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General 
and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using 
the methods contained in these standards and has received no comments 
objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

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

[[Page 51537]]

N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the following IEC 
standards:
    IEC 60350-2, ``Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs-
Methods for measuring performance'', Edition 2.1, 2021-05. This is an 
industry-accepted test procedure that measures conventional electric 
cooking top energy use, using a water heating approach. Specifically, 
the test procedure codified by this final rule references various 
sections of IEC 60350-2:2021 that address test setup, instrumentation, 
test conduct, and calculations.
    IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances-Measurement of standby 
power'', first edition, June 2005 is an industry-accepted test 
procedure that measures standby power in household appliances. The test 
procedure codified by this final rule references various sections of 
IEC 62301 that address test setup, instrumentation, and test conduct 
applicable to units for which standby power varies cyclically (such as 
units with a display clock).
    IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances-Measurement of standby 
power'', Second Edition, 2011-01 is an industry-accepted test procedure 
that measures standby power in household appliances. The test procedure 
codified by this final rule references various sections of IEC 62301 
that address test setup, instrumentation, and test conduct for the 
units for which standby power does not vary cyclically.
    Copies of IEC 60350-2:2021, and both editions of IEC 62301 may be 
purchased from the IEC webstore at webstore.iec.ch, or from the 
American National Standards Institute at 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, 
New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or by going to webstore.ansi.org.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 18, 
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original 
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes 
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal 
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been 
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for 
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 19, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends 10 CFR part 430 
as follows:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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


Sec.  430.2  [Amended]

0
2. Section 430.2 is amended by removing the definition for 
``Convertible cooking appliance.''

0
3. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (p)(3) through (9) as (p)(4) through (10);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (p)(3);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (p)(6); and
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (p)(7);
0
i. Removing the text ``I'' and adding, in its place, the text ``I, 
I1''; and
0
ii. Removing the text ``J2'' and adding, in its place, the text ``J, 
J2''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  430.3   Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (3) IEC 60350-2, (``IEC 60350-2''), Household electric cooking 
appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance, Edition 
2.1, 2021-05; IBR approved for appendix I1 to subpart B.
* * * * *
    (6) IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of 
standby power, first edition, June 2005; IBR approved for appendices I, 
I1 to subpart B.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water 
consumption.

* * * * *
    (i) Cooking products. (1) Determine the standby power for microwave 
ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of a combined cooking 
product, according to section 3.2.3 of appendix I to this subpart. 
Round standby power to the nearest 0.1 watt.
    (2)(i) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption of a 
conventional electric cooking top, including any conventional cooking 
top component of a combined cooking product, according to section 4.3.1 
of appendix I1 to this subpart. Round the result to the nearest 1 
kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year.
    (ii) Determine the integrated annual energy consumption of a 
conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top 
component of a combined cooking product, according to section 4.3.2 of 
appendix I1 to this subpart. Round the result to the nearest 1 kilo-
British thermal unit (kBtu) per year.
    (3) Determine the total annual gas energy consumption of a 
conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top 
component of a combined cooking product, according to section 4.1.2.2.1 
of appendix I1 to this subpart. Round the result to the nearest 1 kBtu 
per year.
    (4)(i) Determine the total annual electrical energy consumption of 
a conventional electric cooking top, including any conventional cooking 
top component of a combined cooking product, as the integrated annual 
energy consumption of the conventional electric cooking top, as 
determined in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section.
    (ii) Determine the total annual electrical energy consumption of a 
conventional gas cooking top, including any conventional cooking top 
component of a combined cooking product, as follows, rounded to the 
nearest 1 kWh per year:

ETGE = EAGE + ETLP

Where:

EAGE is the conventional gas cooking top annual active 
mode electrical energy consumption as defined in section 4.1.2.2.2 
of appendix I1 to this subpart, and ETLP is the combined 
low-power mode energy consumption as defined in section 4.1 of 
appendix I1 to this subpart.

    (5) Determine the estimated annual operating cost corresponding to 
the energy consumption of a conventional cooking top, including any 
conventional

[[Page 51538]]

cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as follows, 
rounded to the nearest dollar per year:

(ETGE x CKWH) + (ETGG x 
CKBTU)

Where:

 ETGE is the total annual electrical energy consumption 
for any electric energy usage, in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, as 
determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(4) of this section;
CKWH is the representative average unit cost for 
electricity, in dollars per kWh, as provided pursuant to section 
323(b)(2) of the Act;
ETGG is the total annual gas energy consumption, in kBtu 
per year, as determined in accordance with paragraph (i)(3) of this 
section; and
CKBTU is the representative average unit cost for natural 
gas or propane, in dollars per kBtu, as provided pursuant to section 
323(b)(2) of the Act, for conventional gas cooking tops that operate 
with natural gas or with LP-gas, respectively.

    (6) Other useful measures of energy consumption for conventional 
cooking tops shall be the measures of energy consumption that the 
Secretary determines are likely to assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions and that are derived from the application of 
appendix I1 to this subpart.
* * * * *

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

0
5. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 is amended by revising the 
appendix heading to read as set forth above.

0
6. Appendix I1 to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows:

Appendix I1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Conventional Cooking Products

    Note: Any representation related to energy consumption of 
conventional cooking tops, including the conventional cooking top 
component of combined cooking products, made after February 20, 2023 
must be based upon results generated under this test procedure. Upon 
the compliance date(s) of any energy conservation standard(s) for 
conventional cooking tops, including the conventional cooking top 
component of combined cooking products, use of the applicable 
provisions of this test procedure to demonstrate compliance with the 
energy conservation standard is required.

0. Incorporation by Reference

    DOE incorporated by reference in Sec.  430.3, the entire test 
standard for IEC 60350-2; IEC 62301 (First Edition); and IEC 62301 
(Second Edition). However, only enumerated provisions of those 
standards are applicable to this appendix, as follows. If there is a 
conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes 
precedence over the referenced test standards.
0.1 IEC 60350-2
    (a) Section 5.1 as referenced in section 2.4.1 of this appendix;
    (b) Section 5.3 as referenced in sections 2.7.1.1, 2.7.3.1, 
2.7.3.3, 2.7.3.4, 2.7.4, and 2.7.5 of this appendix;
    (c) Section 5.5 as referenced in section 2.5.1 of this appendix;
    (d) Section 5.6.1 as referenced in section 2.6.1 of this appendix;
    (e) Section 5.6.1.5 as referenced in section 3.1.1.2 of this 
appendix;
    (f) Section 6.3 as referenced in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this 
appendix;
    (g) Section 6.3.1 as referenced in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this 
appendix;
    (h) Section 6.3.2 as referenced in section 3.1.1.1.1 of this 
appendix;
    (i) Section 7.5.1 as referenced in section 2.6.2 of this appendix;
    (j) Section 7.5.2 as referenced in section 3.1.4.4 of this 
appendix;
    (k) Section 7.5.2.1 as referenced in sections 1 and 3.1.4.2 of this 
appendix;
    (l) Section 7.5.2.2 as referenced in section 3.1.4.4 of this 
appendix;
    (m) Section 7.5.4.1 as referenced in sections 1 and 3.1.4.5 of this 
appendix;
    (n) Annex A as referenced in section 3.1.1.2 of this appendix;
    (o) Annex B as referenced in sections 2.6.1 and 2.8.3 of this 
appendix; and
    (p) Annex C as referenced in section 3.1.4.1 of this appendix.
0.2 IEC 62301 (First Edition)
    (a) Paragraph 5.3 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix; 
and
    (b) Paragraph 5.3.2 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix.
0.3 IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
    (a) Paragraph 4.2 as referenced in section 2.4.2 of this appendix;
    (b) Paragraph 4.3.2 as referenced in section 2.2.1.1.2 of this 
appendix;
    (c) Paragraph 4.4 as referenced in section 2.7.1.2 of this 
appendix;
    (d) Paragraph 5.1 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix; 
and
    (e) Paragraph 5.3.2 as referenced in section 3.2 of this appendix.

1. Definitions

    The following definitions apply to the test procedures in this 
appendix, including the test procedures incorporated by reference:
    Active mode means a mode in which the product is connected to a 
mains power source, has been activated, and is performing the main 
function of producing heat by means of a gas flame, electric resistance 
heating, or electric inductive heating.
    Built-in means the product is enclosed in surrounding cabinetry, 
walls, or other similar structures on at least three sides, and can be 
supported by surrounding cabinetry or the floor.
    Combined cooking product means a household cooking appliance that 
combines a cooking product with other appliance functionality, which 
may or may not include another cooking product. Combined cooking 
products include the following products: conventional range, microwave/
conventional cooking top, microwave/conventional oven, and microwave/
conventional range.
    Combined low-power mode means the aggregate of available modes 
other than active mode, but including the delay start mode portion of 
active mode.
    Cooking area means an area on a conventional cooking top surface 
heated by an inducted magnetic field where cookware is placed for 
heating, where more than one cookware item can be used simultaneously 
and controlled separately from other cookware placed on the cooking 
area, and that may or may not include limitative markings.
    Cooking top control means a part of the conventional cooking top 
used to adjust the power and the temperature of the cooking zone or 
cooking area for one cookware item.
    Cooking zone means a part of a conventional cooking top surface 
that is either a single electric resistance heating element, multiple 
concentric sizes of electric resistance heating elements, an inductive 
heating element, or a gas surface unit that is defined by limitative 
markings on the surface of the cooking top and can be controlled 
independently of any other cooking area or cooking zone.
    Cycle finished mode means a standby mode in which a conventional 
cooking top provides continuous status display following operation in 
active mode.
    Drop-in means the product is supported by horizontal surface 
cabinetry.
    Freestanding means the product is supported by the floor and is not 
specified in the manufacturer's instructions as able to be installed 
such that it is enclosed by surrounding cabinetry, walls, or other 
similar structures.
    Inactive mode means a standby mode that facilitates the activation 
of active mode by remote switch (including remote control), internal 
sensor, or timer, or that provides continuous status display.
    Infinite power settings means a cooking zone control without 
discrete power settings, which allows for

[[Page 51539]]

selection of any power setting up to the maximum power setting.
    Maximum-below-threshold power setting means the power setting on a 
conventional cooking top that is the highest power setting that results 
in smoothened water temperature data that do not meet the evaluation 
criteria specified in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2.
    Maximum power setting means the maximum possible power setting if 
only one cookware item is used on the cooking zone or cooking area of a 
conventional cooking top, including any optional power boosting 
features. For conventional electric cooking tops with multi-ring 
cooking zones or cooking areas, the maximum power setting is the 
maximum power corresponding to the concentric heating element with the 
largest diameter, which may correspond to a power setting which may 
include one or more of the smaller concentric heating elements. For 
conventional gas cooking tops with multi-ring cooking zones, the 
maximum power setting is the maximum heat input rate when the maximum 
number of rings of the cooking zone are ignited.
    Minimum-above-threshold power setting means the power setting on a 
conventional cooking top that is the lowest power setting that results 
in smoothened water temperature data that meet the evaluation criteria 
specified in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2. This power setting is also 
referred to as the simmering setting.
    Multi-ring cooking zone means a cooking zone on a conventional 
cooking top with multiple concentric sizes of electric resistance 
heating elements or gas burner rings.
    Off mode means any mode in which a product is connected to a mains 
power source and is not providing any active mode or standby function, 
and where the mode may persist for an indefinite time. An indicator 
that only shows the user that the product is in the off position is 
included within the classification of an off mode.
    Power setting means a setting on a cooking zone control that offers 
a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive 
heating.
    Simmering period means, for each cooking zone, the 20-minute period 
during the simmering test starting at time t90.
    Smoothened water temperature means the 40-second moving-average 
temperature as calculated in Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2, rounded to 
the nearest 0.1 degree Celsius.
    Specialty cooking zone means a warming plate, grill, griddle, or 
any cooking zone that is designed for use only with non-circular 
cookware, such as a bridge zone. Specialty cooking zones are not tested 
under this appendix.
    Stable temperature means a temperature that does not vary by more 
than 1 [deg]C over a 5-minute period.
    Standard cubic foot of gas means the quantity of gas that occupies 
1 cubic foot when saturated with water vapor at a temperature of 60 
[deg]F and a pressure of 14.73 pounds per square inch (30 inches of 
mercury or 101.6 kPa).
    Standby mode means any mode in which a product is connected to a 
mains power source and offers one or more of the following user-
oriented or protective functions which may persist for an indefinite 
time:
    (1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including 
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch (including 
remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
    (2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or 
status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A timer 
is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be associated with 
a display) that allows for regularly scheduled tasks and that operates 
on a continuous basis.
    Target turndown temperature (Tctarget) means the 
temperature as calculated according to Section 7.5.2.1 of IEC 60350-2 
and section 3.1.4.2 of this appendix, for each cooking zone.
    Thermocouple means a device consisting of two dissimilar metals 
which are joined together and, with their associated wires, are used to 
measure temperature by means of electromotive force.
    Time t90 means the first instant during the simmering 
test for each cooking zone at which the smoothened water temperature is 
greater than or equal to 90 [deg]C.
    Turndown temperature (Tc) means, for each cooking zone, 
the measured water temperature at the time at which the tester begins 
adjusting the cooking top controls to change the power setting.

2. Test Conditions and Instrumentation

    2.1 Installation. Install the conventional cooking top or combined 
cooking product in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If 
the manufacturer's instructions specify that the product may be used in 
multiple installation conditions, install the product according to the 
built-in configuration. Completely assemble the product with all 
handles, knobs, guards, and similar components mounted in place. 
Position any electric resistance heaters, gas burners, and baffles in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If the product can 
communicate through a network (e.g., Bluetooth[supreg] or internet 
connection), disable the network function, if it is possible to disable 
it by means provided in the manufacturer's user manual, for the 
duration of testing. If the network function cannot be disabled, or if 
means for disabling the function are not provided in the manufacturer's 
user manual, the product shall be tested in the factory default setting 
or in the as-shipped condition.
    2.1.1 Freestanding combined cooking product. Install a freestanding 
combined cooking product with the back directly against, or as near as 
possible to, a vertical wall which extends at least 1 foot above the 
product and 1 foot beyond both sides of the product, and with no side 
walls.
    2.1.2 Drop-in or built-in combined cooking product. Install a drop-
in or built-in combined cooking product in a test enclosure in 
accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
    2.1.3 Conventional cooking top. Install a conventional cooking top 
with the back directly against, or as near as possible to, a vertical 
wall which extends at least 1 foot above the product and 1 foot beyond 
both sides of the product.
    2.2 Energy supply.
    2.2.1 Electrical supply.
    2.2.1.1 Supply voltage.
    2.2.1.1.1 Active mode supply voltage. During active mode testing, 
maintain the electrical supply to the product at either 240 volts 
1 percent or 120 volts 1 percent, according to 
the manufacturer's instructions, except for products which do not allow 
for a mains electrical supply. The actual voltage shall be maintained 
and recorded throughout the test. Instantaneous voltage fluctuations 
caused by the turning on or off of electrical components shall not be 
considered.
    2.2.1.1.2 Standby mode and off mode supply voltage. During standby 
mode and off mode testing, maintain the electrical supply to the 
product at either 240 volts 1 percent, or 120 volts 1 percent, according to the manufacturer's instructions. Maintain 
the electrical supply voltage waveform specified in Section 4, 
Paragraph 4.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition), disregarding the 
provisions regarding batteries and the determination, classification, 
and testing of relevant modes. If the power measuring instrument used 
for testing is unable to measure and record the total harmonic content 
during the test measurement period, total harmonic content may be 
measured and recorded immediately before and after the test measurement 
period.

[[Page 51540]]

    2.2.1.2 Supply frequency. Maintain the electrical supply frequency 
for all tests at 60 hertz 1 percent.
    2.2.2 Gas supply.
    2.2.2.1 Natural gas. Maintain the natural gas pressure immediately 
ahead of all controls of the unit under test at 7 to 10 inches of water 
column, except as specified in section 3.1.3 of this appendix. The 
natural gas supplied should have a higher heating value (dry-basis) of 
approximately 1,025 Btu per standard cubic foot. Obtain the higher 
heating value on a dry basis of gas, Hn, in Btu per standard 
cubic foot, for the natural gas to be used in the test either from 
measurements made by the manufacturer conducting the test using 
equipment that meets the requirements described in section 2.7.2.2 of 
this appendix or by the use of bottled natural gas whose gross heating 
value is certified to be at least as accurate a value that meets the 
requirements in section 2.7.2.2 of this appendix.
    2.2.2.2 Propane. Maintain the propane pressure immediately ahead of 
all controls of the unit under test at 11 to 13 inches of water column, 
except as specified in section 3.1.3 of this appendix. The propane 
supplied should have a higher heating value (dry-basis) of 
approximately 2,500 Btu per standard cubic foot. Obtain the higher 
heating value on a dry basis of gas, Hp, in Btu per standard 
cubic foot, for the propane to be used in the test either from 
measurements made by the manufacturer conducting the test using 
equipment that meets the requirements described in section 2.7.2.2 of 
this appendix, or by the use of bottled propane whose gross heating 
value is certified to be at least as accurate a value that meets the 
requirements described in section 2.7.2.2 of this appendix.
    2.3 Air circulation. Maintain air circulation in the room 
sufficient to secure a reasonably uniform temperature distribution, but 
do not cause a direct draft on the unit under test.
    2.4 Ambient room test conditions.
    2.4.1 Active mode ambient conditions. During active mode testing, 
maintain the ambient room air pressure specified in Section 5.1 of IEC 
60350-2, and maintain the ambient room air temperature at 25  5 [deg]C with a target temperature of 25 [deg]C.
    2.4.2 Standby mode and off mode ambient conditions. During standby 
mode and off mode testing, maintain the ambient room air temperature 
conditions specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 (Second 
Edition).
    2.5 Product temperature.
    2.5.1 Product temperature stability. Prior to any testing, the 
product must achieve a stable temperature meeting the ambient room air 
temperature specified in section 2.4 of this appendix. For all 
conventional cooking tops, forced cooling may be used to assist in 
reducing the temperature of the product between tests, as specified in 
Section 5.5 of IEC 60350-2. Forced cooling must not be used during the 
period of time used to assess temperature stability.
    2.5.2 Product temperature measurement. Measure the product 
temperature in degrees Celsius using the equipment specified in section 
2.7.3.3 of this appendix at the following locations.
    2.5.2.1 Measure the product temperature at the center of the 
cooking zone under test for any gas burner adjustment in section 3.1.3 
of this appendix and per-cooking zone energy consumption test in 
section 3.1.4 of this appendix, except that the product temperature 
measurement is not required for any potential simmering setting pre-
selection test in section 3.1.4.3 of this appendix. For a conventional 
gas cooking top, measure the product temperature inside the burner body 
of the cooking zone under test, after temporarily removing any burner 
cap on that cooking zone.
    2.5.2.2 Measure the temperature at the center of each cooking zone 
for the standby mode and off mode power test in section 3.2 of this 
appendix. For a conventional gas cooking top, measure the temperature 
inside the burner body of each cooking zone, after temporarily removing 
any burner cap on that cooking zone. Calculate the product temperature 
as the average of the temperatures at the center of each cooking zone.
    2.6 Test loads.
    2.6.1 Test vessels. The test vessel for active mode testing of each 
cooking zone must meet the specifications in Section 5.6.1 and Annex B 
of IEC 60350-2.
    2.6.2 Water load. The water used to fill the test vessels for 
active mode testing must meet the specifications in Section 7.5.1 of 
IEC 60350-2. The water temperature at the start of each test, except 
for the gas burner adjustment in section 3.1.3 of this appendix and the 
potential simmering setting pre-selection test in section 3.1.4.3 of 
this appendix, must have an initial temperature equal to 25  0.5 [deg]C.
    2.7 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the 
following instruments, as appropriate:
    2.7.1 Electrical measurements.
    2.7.1.1 Active mode watt-hour meter. The watt-hour meter for 
measuring the active mode electrical energy consumption must have a 
resolution as specified in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2. 
Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of 
IEC 60350-2.
    2.7.1.2 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter used 
to measure standby mode and off mode power must meet the specifications 
in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition). If the power 
measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and record 
the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio during the 
test measurement period, measure the crest factor, power factor, and 
maximum current ratio immediately before and after the test measurement 
period to determine whether these characteristics meet the 
specifications in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 (Second 
Edition).
    2.7.2 Gas measurements.
    2.7.2.1 Gas meter. The gas meter used for measuring gas consumption 
must have a resolution of 0.01 cubic foot or less and a maximum error 
no greater than 1 percent of the measured valued for any demand greater 
than 2.2 cubic feet per hour.
    2.7.2.2 Standard continuous flow calorimeter. The maximum error of 
the basic calorimeter must be no greater than 0.2 percent of the actual 
heating value of the gas used in the test. The indicator readout must 
have a maximum error no greater than 0.5 percent of the measured value 
within the operating range and a resolution of 0.2 percent of the full-
scale reading of the indicator instrument.
    2.7.2.3 Gas line temperature. The incoming gas temperature must be 
measured at the gas meter. The instrument for measuring the gas line 
temperature shall have a maximum error no greater than 2 
[deg]F over the operating range.
    2.7.2.4 Gas line pressure. The incoming gas pressure must be 
measured at the gas meter. The instrument for measuring the gas line 
pressure must have a maximum error no greater than 0.1 inches of water 
column.
    2.7.3 Temperature measurements.
    2.7.3.1 Active mode ambient room temperature. The room temperature 
indicating system must meet the specifications in Table 1 of Section 
5.3 of IEC 60350-2. Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2 
of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2.
    2.7.3.2 Standby mode and off mode ambient room temperature. The 
room temperature indicating system must have an error no greater than 
1 [deg]F (0.6

[[Page 51541]]

[deg]C) over the range 65[deg] to 90 [deg]F (18 [deg]C to 32 [deg]C).
    2.7.3.3 Product temperature. The temperature indicating system must 
have an error no greater than 1 [deg]F (0.6 
[deg]C) over the range 65[deg] to 90 [deg]F (18 [deg]C to 32 [deg]C). 
Measurements shall be made as specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of 
IEC 60350-2.
    2.7.3.4 Water temperature. Measure the test vessel water 
temperature with a thermocouple that meets the specifications in Table 
1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2. Measurements shall be made as 
specified in Table 2 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2.
    2.7.4 Room air pressure. The room air pressure indicating system 
must meet the specifications in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 60350-2.
    2.7.5 Water mass. The scale used to measure the mass of the water 
load must meet the specifications in Table 1 of Section 5.3 of IEC 
60350-2.
    2.8 Power settings.
    2.8.1 On a multi-ring cooking zone on a conventional gas cooking 
top, all power settings are considered, whether they ignite all rings 
of orifices or not.
    2.8.2 On a multi-ring cooking zone on a conventional electric 
cooking top, only power settings corresponding to the concentric 
heating element with the largest diameter are considered, which may 
correspond to operation with one or more of the smaller concentric 
heating elements energized.
    2.8.3 On a cooking zone with infinite power settings where the 
available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is more than 150 
rotational degrees, evaluate power settings that are spaced by 10 
rotational degrees. On a cooking zone with infinite power settings 
where the available range of rotation from maximum to minimum is less 
than or equal to 150 rotational degrees, evaluate power settings that 
are spaced by 5 rotational degrees, starting with the first position 
that meets the definition of a power setting, irrespective of how the 
knob is labeled. Polar coordinate paper, as provided in Annex B of IEC 
60350-2 may be used to mark power settings.

3. Test Methods and Measurements

    3.1 Active mode. Perform the following test methods for 
conventional cooking tops and the conventional cooking top component of 
a combined cooking product.
    3.1.1 Test vessel and water load selection.
    3.1.1.1 Conventional electric cooking tops.
    3.1.1.1.1 For cooking zones, measure the size of each cooking zone 
as specified in Section 6.3.2 of IEC 60350-2, not including any 
specialty cooking zones as defined in section 1 of this appendix. For 
circular cooking zones on smooth cooking tops, the cooking zone size is 
determined using the outer diameter of the printed marking, as 
specified in Section 6.3 of IEC 60350-2. For open coil cooking zones, 
the cooking zone size is determined using the widest diameter of the 
coil, see Figure 3.1.1.1. For non-circular cooking zones, the cooking 
zone size is determined by the measurement of the shorter side or minor 
axis. For cooking areas, determine the number of cooking zones as 
specified in Section 6.3.1 of IEC 60350-2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.001

    3.1.1.1.2 Determine the test vessel diameter in millimeters (mm) 
and water load mass in grams (g) for each measured cooking zone. For 
cooking zones, test vessel selection is based on cooking zone size as 
specified in Table 3 in Section 5.6.1.5 of IEC 60350-2. For cooking 
areas, test vessel selection is based on the number of cooking zones as 
specified in Annex A of IEC 60350-2. If a selected test vessel 
(including its lid) cannot be centered on the cooking zone due to 
interference with a structural component of the cooking top, the test 
vessel with the largest diameter that can be centered on the cooking 
zone shall be used. The

[[Page 51542]]

allowable tolerance on the water load weight is 0.5 g.
    3.1.1.2 Conventional gas cooking tops.
    3.1.1.2.1 Record the nominal heat input rate for each cooking zone, 
not including any specialty cooking zones as defined in section 1 of 
this appendix.
    3.1.1.2.2 Determine the test vessel diameter in mm and water load 
mass in g for each measured cooking zone according to Table 3.1 of this 
appendix. If a selected test vessel cannot be centered on the cooking 
zone due to interference with a structural component of the cooking 
top, the test vessel with the largest diameter that can be centered on 
the cooking zone shall be used. The allowable tolerance on the water 
load weight is 0.5 g.

                       Table 3.1--Test Vessel Selection for Conventional Gas Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Nominal gas burner input rate (Btu/h)                         Test vessel     Water load
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------    diameter          mass
                                                                                 -------------------------------
                           Minimum (<)                             Maximum (<=)        (mm)             (g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           5,600             210           2,050
5,600...........................................................           8,050             240           2,700
8,050...........................................................          14,300             270           3,420
14,300..........................................................  ..............             300           4,240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3.1.2 Unit Preparation. Before the first measurement is taken, all 
cooking zones must be operated simultaneously for at least 10 minutes 
at maximum power. This step shall be conducted once per product.
    3.1.3 Gas burner adjustment. Prior to active mode testing of each 
tested burner of a conventional gas cooking top, the burner heat input 
rate must be adjusted, if necessary, to within 2 percent of the nominal 
heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer. Prior 
to ignition and any adjustment of the burner heat input rate, the 
conventional cooking top must achieve the product temperature specified 
in section 2.5 of this appendix. Ignite and operate the gas burner 
under test with the test vessel and water mass specified in section 
3.1.1 of this appendix. Measure the heat input rate of the gas burner 
under test starting 5 minutes after ignition. If the measured input 
rate of the gas burner under test is within 2 percent of the nominal 
heat input rate of the burner as specified by the manufacturer, no 
adjustment of the heat input rate shall be made.
    3.1.3.1 Conventional gas cooking tops with an adjustable internal 
pressure regulator. If the measured heat input rate of the burner under 
test is not within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the 
burner as specified by the manufacturer, adjust the product's internal 
pressure regulator such that the heat input rate of the burner under 
test is within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner 
as specified by the manufacturer. Adjust the burner with sufficient air 
flow to prevent a yellow flame or a flame with yellow tips. Complete 
section 3.1.4 of this appendix while maintaining the same gas pressure 
regulator adjustment.
    3.1.3.2 Conventional gas cooking tops with a non-adjustable 
internal pressure regulator or without an internal pressure regulator. 
If the measured heat input rate of the burner under test is not within 
2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as specified by 
the manufacturer, remove the product's internal pressure regulator, or 
block it in the open position, and initially maintain the gas pressure 
ahead of all controls of the unit under test approximately equal to the 
manufacturer's recommended manifold pressure. Adjust the gas supply 
pressure such that the heat input rate of the burner under test is 
within 2 percent of the nominal heat input rate of the burner as 
specified by the manufacturer. Adjust the burner with sufficient air 
flow to prevent a yellow flame or a flame with yellow tips. Complete 
section 3.1.4 of this appendix while maintaining the same gas pressure 
regulator adjustment.
    3.1.4 Per-cooking zone energy consumption test. Establish the test 
conditions set forth in section 2 of this appendix. Turn off the gas 
flow to the conventional oven(s), if so equipped. The product 
temperature must meet the specifications in section 2.5 of this 
appendix.
    3.1.4.1 Test vessel placement. Position the test vessel with water 
load for the cooking zone under test, selected and prepared as 
specified in section 3.1.1 of this appendix, in the center of the 
cooking zone, and as specified in Annex C to IEC 60350-2.
    3.1.4.2 Overshoot test. Use the test methods set forth in Section 
7.5.2.1 of IEC 60350-2 to determine the target turndown temperature for 
each cooking zone, Tctarget, in degrees Celsius, as follows.

Tctarget = 93 [deg]C - (Tmax - T70)

Where:

Tmax is highest recorded temperature value, in degrees 
Celsius; and
T70 is the average recorded temperature between the time 
10 seconds before the power is turned off and the time 10 seconds 
after the power is turned off.

    If T70 is within the tolerance of 70  0.5 
[deg]C, the target turndown temperature is the highest of 80 [deg]C and 
the calculated Tctarget, rounded to the nearest integer. If 
T70 is outside of the tolerance, the overshoot test is 
considered invalid and must be repeated after allowing the product to 
return to ambient conditions.
    3.1.4.3 Potential simmering setting pre-selection test. The 
potential simmering setting for each cooking zone may be determined 
using the potential simmering setting pre-selecting test. If a 
potential simmering setting is already known, it may be used instead of 
completing sections 3.1.4.3.1 through 3.1.4.3.4 of this appendix.
    3.1.4.3.1 Use the test vessel with water load for the cooking zone 
under test, selected, prepared, and positioned as specified in sections 
3.1.1 and 3.1.4.1 of this appendix. The temperature of the conventional 
cooking top is not required to meet the specification for the product 
temperature in section 2.5 of this appendix for the potential simmering 
setting pre-selection test. Operate the cooking zone under test with 
the lowest available power setting. Measure the energy consumption for 
10 minutes 2 seconds.
    3.1.4.3.2 Calculate the power density of the power setting, j, on a 
conventional electric cooking top, Qej, in watts per square 
centimeter, as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.002

Where:

 a = the surface area of the test vessel bottom, in square 
centimeters; and
Ej = the electrical energy consumption during the 10-
minute test, in Wh.

    3.1.4.3.3 Calculate the power density of the power setting, j, on a

[[Page 51543]]

conventional gas cooking top, Qgj, in Btu/h per square 
centimeter, as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.003

Where:

 a = the surface area of the test vessel bottom, in square 
centimeters;
Vj = the volume of gas consumed during the 10-minute 
test, in cubic feet;
CF = the gas correction factor to standard temperature and pressure, 
as calculated in section 4.1.1.2.1 of this appendix;
H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the 
gas used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 of 
this appendix, in Btu per standard cubic foot of gas;
Eej = the electrical energy consumption of the 
conventional gas cooking top during the 10-minute test, in Wh; and
Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh, conversion factor of watt-hours to 
Btu.

    3.1.4.3.4 Repeat the measurement for each successively higher power 
setting until Qej exceeds 0.8 W/cm\2\ for conventional 
electric cooking tops or Qgj exceeds 4.0 Btu/h[middot]cm\2\ 
for conventional gas cooking tops.
    For conventional cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the 
power setting, the selection knob shall be turned to the maximum power 
setting in between each test, to avoid hysteresis. The selection knob 
shall be turned in the direction from higher power to lower power to 
select the power setting for the test. If the appropriate power setting 
is passed, the selection knob shall be turned to the maximum power 
setting again before repeating the power setting selection.
    Of the last two power settings tested, the potential simmering 
setting is the power setting that produces a power density closest to 
0.8 W/cm\2\ for conventional electric cooking tops or 4.0 Btu/
h[middot]cm\2\ for conventional gas cooking tops. The closest power 
density may be higher or lower than the applicable threshold value.
    3.1.4.4 Simmering test. The product temperature must meet the 
specifications in section 2.5 of this appendix at the start of each 
simmering test. For each cooking zone, conduct the test method 
specified in Section 7.5.2 of IEC 60350-2, using the potential 
simmering setting identified in section 3.1.4.3 of this appendix for 
the initial simmering setting used in Section 7.5.2.2 of IEC 60350-2.
    For conventional cooking tops with rotating knobs for selecting the 
power setting, the selection knob shall be turned in the direction from 
higher power to lower power to select the potential simmering setting 
for the test, to avoid hysteresis. If the appropriate setting is 
passed, the test is considered invalid and must be repeated after 
allowing the product to return to ambient conditions.
    3.1.4.5 Evaluation of the simmering test. Evaluate the test 
conducted under section 3.1.4.4 of this appendix as set forth in 
Section 7.5.4.1 of IEC 60350-2 according to Figure 3.1.4.5 of this 
appendix. If the measured turndown temperature, Tc, is not within -0.5 
[deg]C and +1 [deg]C of the target turndown temperature, 
Tctarget, the test is considered invalid and must be 
repeated after allowing the product to return to ambient conditions.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 51544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.004

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    3.2 Standby mode and off mode power. Establish the standby mode and 
off mode testing conditions set forth in section 2 of this appendix. 
For products that take some time to enter a stable state from a higher 
power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 
62301 (Second Edition), allow sufficient time for the product to reach 
the lower power state before proceeding with the test measurement. 
Follow the test procedure as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of 
IEC 62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each possible mode as 
described in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of this appendix. For units in 
which power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, set 
the clock time to 3:23 at the end of an initial stabilization period, 
as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 (First Edition). 
After an additional 10-minute stabilization period, measure the power 
use for a single test period of 10 minutes +0/-2 seconds that starts 
when the clock time first reads 3:33. Use the average power approach 
described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First 
Edition).
    3.2.1 If the product has an inactive mode, as defined in section 1 
of this appendix, measure the average inactive mode power, 
PIA, in watts.
    3.2.2 If the product has an off mode, as defined in section 1 of 
this appendix, measure the average off mode power, POM, in 
watts.
    3.3 Recorded values.
    3.3.1 Active mode.
    3.3.1.1 For a conventional gas cooking top tested with natural gas, 
record the natural gas higher heating value in Btu per standard cubic 
foot, Hn, as determined in section 2.2.2.1 of this appendix 
for the natural gas supply. For a conventional gas cooking top tested 
with propane, record the propane higher heating value in Btu per 
standard cubic foot, Hp, as determined in section 2.2.2.2 of 
this appendix for the propane supply.
    3.3.1.2 Record the test room temperature in degrees Celsius and 
relative air pressure in hectopascals (hPa) during each test.
    3.3.1.3 Per-cooking zone energy consumption test.
    3.3.1.3.1 Record the product temperature in degrees Celsius, 
TP, prior to the start of each overshoot test or simmering 
test, as determined in section 2.5 of this appendix.
    3.3.1.3.2 Overshoot test. For each cooking zone, record the initial 
temperature of the water in degrees Celsius, Ti; the average 
water temperature between the time 10 seconds before the power is 
turned off and the time 10 seconds after the power is turned off in 
degrees Celsius, T70; the highest recorded water temperature 
in degrees Celsius, Tmax; and the target turndown 
temperature in degrees Celsius, Tctarget.
    3.3.1.3.3 Simmering test. For each cooking zone, record the 
temperature of the water throughout the test, in degrees Celsius, and 
the values in sections 3.3.1.3.3.1 through 3.3.1.3.3.7 of this appendix 
for the Energy Test Cycle, if an Energy Test Cycle is measured in 
section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, otherwise for both the maximum-below-

[[Page 51545]]

threshold power setting and the minimum-above-threshold power setting. 
Because t90 may not be known until completion of the 
simmering test, water temperature, any electrical energy consumption, 
and any gas volumetric consumption measurements may be recorded for 
several minutes after the end of the simmering period to ensure that 
the full simmering period is recorded.
    3.3.1.3.3.1 The power setting under test.
    3.3.1.3.3.2 The initial temperature of the water, in degrees 
Celsius, Ti.
    3.3.1.3.3.3 The time at which the tester begins adjusting the 
cooking top control to change the power setting, to the nearest second, 
tc and the turndown temperature, in degrees Celsius, Tc.
    3.3.1.3.3.4 The time at which the simmering period starts, to the 
nearest second, t90.
    3.3.1.3.3.5 The time at which the simmering period ends, to the 
nearest second, tS and the smoothened water temperature at 
the end of the simmering period, in degrees Celsius, TS.
    3.3.1.3.3.6 For a conventional electric cooking top, the electrical 
energy consumption from the start of the test to tS, E, in 
watt-hours.
    3.3.1.3.3.7 For a conventional gas cooking top, the volume of gas 
consumed from the start of the test to tS, V, in cubic feet 
of gas; and any electrical energy consumption of the cooking top from 
the start of the test to tS, Ee, in watt-hours.
    3.3.2 Standby mode and off mode. Make measurements as specified in 
section 3.2 of this appendix. If the product is capable of operating in 
inactive mode, as defined in section 1 of this appendix, record the 
average inactive mode power, PIA, in watts as specified in 
section 3.2.1 of this appendix. If the product is capable of operating 
in off mode, as defined in section 1 of this appendix, record the 
average off mode power, POM, in watts as specified in 
section 3.2.2 of this appendix.

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

    4.1. Active mode energy consumption of conventional cooking tops 
and any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking 
product.
    4.1.1 Per-cycle active mode energy consumption of a conventional 
cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined 
cooking product.
    4.1.1.1 Conventional electric cooking top per-cycle active mode 
energy consumption.
    4.1.1.1.1 Conventional electric cooking top per-cooking zone 
normalized active mode energy consumption. For each cooking zone, 
calculate the per-cooking zone normalized active mode energy 
consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, E, in watt-hours, 
using the following equation:

E = EETC

for cooking zones where an Energy Test Cycle was measured in section 
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.005

for cooking zones where a minimum-above-threshold cycle and a maximum-
below-threshold cycle were measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this 
appendix.

Where:

EETC = the electrical energy consumption of the Energy Test Cycle 
from the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking 
zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-
hours;
EMAT = the electrical energy consumption of the minimum-
above-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end 
of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 
of this appendix, in watt-hours;
EMBT = the electrical energy consumption of the maximum-
below-threshold power setting from the start of the test to the end 
of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 
of this appendix, in watt-hours;
TS,MAT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of 
the minimum-above-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone, 
in degrees Celsius; and
TS,MBT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of 
the maximum-below-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone, 
in degrees Celsius.

    4.1.1.1.2 Calculate the per-cycle active mode total energy 
consumption of a conventional electric cooking top, ECET, in 
watt-hours, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.006

Where:

 n = the total number of cooking zones tested on the conventional 
cooking top;
Ez = the normalized energy consumption representative of 
the Energy Test Cycle for each cooking zone, as calculated in 
section 4.1.1.1.1 of this appendix, in watt-hours;
mz is the mass of water used for each cooking zone, in 
grams; and
2853 = the representative water load mass, in grams.

    4.1.1.2 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active mode energy 
consumption.
    4.1.1.2.1 Gas correction factor to standard temperature and 
pressure. Calculate the gas correction factor to standard temperature 
and pressure, which converts between standard cubic feet and measured 
cubic feet of gas for a given set of test conditions:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.007

Where:

 Pgas = the measured line gas gauge pressure, in inches 
of water column;
0.0361= the conversion factor from inches of water column to pounds 
per square inch;
Patm = the measured atmospheric pressure, in pounds per 
square inch;
Pbase = 14.73 pounds per square inch, the standard sea 
level air pressure;
Tbase = 519.67 degrees Rankine (or 288.7 Kelvin);
Tgas = the measured line gas temperature, in degrees 
Fahrenheit (or degrees Celsius); and
Tk = the adder converting from degrees Fahrenheit to 
degrees Rankine, 459.7 (or from degrees Celsius to Kelvin, 273.16).


[[Page 51546]]


    4.1.1.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top per-cooking zone normalized 
active mode gas consumption. For each cooking zone, calculate the per-
cooking zone normalized active mode gas consumption of a conventional 
gas cooking top, V, in cubic feet, using the following equation:

V = VETC

for cooking zones where an Energy Test Cycle was measured in section 
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.008

for cooking zones where a minimum-above-threshold cycle and a maximum-
below-threshold cycle were measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this 
appendix.

Where:

VETC = the gas consumption of the Energy Test Cycle from 
the start of the test to the end of the test for the cooking zone, 
as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in cubic feet;
VMAT = the gas consumption of the minimum-above-threshold 
power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for 
the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, 
in cubic feet;
VMBT = the gas consumption of the maximum-below-threshold 
power setting from the start of the test to the end of the test for 
the cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, 
in cubic feet;
TS,MAT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of 
the minimum-above-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone, 
in degrees Celsius; and
TS,MBT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of 
the maximum-below-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone, 
in degrees Celsius.

    4.1.1.2.3 Conventional gas cooking top per-cooking zone active mode 
normalized electrical energy consumption. For each cooking zone, 
calculate the per-cooking zone normalized active mode electrical energy 
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, Ee, in watt-
hours, using the following equation:

Ee = Ee,ETC

for cooking zones where an Energy Test Cycle was measured in section 
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.009

for cooking zones where a minimum-above-threshold cycle and a maximum-
below-threshold cycle were measured in section 3.1.4.5 of this 
appendix.

Where:

Ee,ETC = the electrical energy consumption of the Energy 
Test Cycle from the start of the test to the end of the test for the 
cooking zone, as determined in section 3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in 
watt-hours;
Ee,MAT = the electrical energy consumption of the 
minimum-above-threshold power setting from the start of the test to 
the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours;
Ee,MBT = the electrical energy consumption of the 
maximum-below-threshold power setting from the start of the test to 
the end of the test for the cooking zone, as determined in section 
3.1.4.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours;
TS,MAT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of 
the minimum-above-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone, 
in degrees Celsius; and
TS,MBT = the smoothened water temperature at the end of 
the maximum-below-threshold power setting test for the cooking zone, 
in degrees Celsius.

    4.1.1.2.4 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active mode gas 
energy consumption. Calculate the per-cycle active mode gas energy 
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, ECGG, in Btu, 
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.010

Where:

n, mz, and 2853 are defined in section 4.1.1.1.2 of this 
appendix;
Vz = the normalized gas consumption representative of the 
Energy Test Cycle for each cooking zone, as calculated in section 
4.1.1.2.2 of this appendix, in cubic feet; and
CF = the gas correction factor to standard temperature and pressure, 
as calculated in section 4.1.1.2.1 of this appendix
H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the 
gas used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 of 
this appendix, expressed in Btu per standard cubic foot of gas.

    4.1.1.2.5 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active mode 
electrical energy consumption. Calculate the per-cycle active mode 
electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, 
ECGE, in watt-hours, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AU22.011

Where:

 n, mz, and 2853 are defined in section 4.1.1.1.2 of this 
appendix; and
Eez = the normalized electrical energy consumption 
representative of the Energy Test Cycle for each cooking zone, as 
calculated in section 4.1.1.2.3 of this appendix, in watt-hours.

    4.1.1.2.6 Conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active-mode total 
energy consumption. Calculate the per-cycle active mode total energy 
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, ECGT, in Btu, 
using the following equation:

ECGT = ECGG + (ECGE x Ke)

Where:

ECGG = the per-cycle active mode gas energy consumption 
of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in section 4.1.1.2.4 
of this appendix, in Btu;
ECGE = the per-cycle active mode electrical energy 
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top as determined in 
section 4.1.1.2.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours; and
Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh, conversion factor of watt-hours to 
Btu.

    4.1.2 Annual active mode energy consumption of a conventional 
cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined 
cooking product.
    4.1.2.1 Conventional electric cooking top annual active mode energy 
consumption. Calculate the annual active mode total energy consumption 
of a conventional electric cooking top, EAET, in kilowatt-
hours per year, using the following equation:

EAET = ECET x K x NC

Where:

[[Page 51547]]

ECET = the conventional electric cooking top per-cycle 
active mode total energy consumption, as determined in section 
4.1.1.1.2 of this appendix, in watt-hours;
K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; 
and
NC = 418 cooking cycles per year, the average number of 
cooking cycles per year normalized for duration of a cooking event 
estimated for conventional cooking tops.

    4.1.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode energy 
consumption.
    4.1.2.2.1 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode gas 
energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode gas energy 
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, EAGG, in kBtu 
per year, using the following equation:

EAGG = ECGG x K x NC

Where:

K and NC are defined in section 4.1.2.1 of this appendix; 
and
ECGG = the conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active 
mode gas energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.1.2.4 of 
this appendix, in Btu.

    4.1.2.2.2 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode 
electrical energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode 
electrical energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, 
EAGE, in kilowatt-hours per year, using the following 
equation:

EAGE = ECGE x K x NC

Where:

 K and NC are defined in section 4.1.2.1 of this 
appendix; and
ECGE = the conventional gas cooking top per-cycle active 
mode electrical energy consumption, as determined in section 
4.1.1.2.5 of this appendix, in watt-hours.

    4.1.2.2.3 Conventional gas cooking top annual active mode total 
energy consumption. Calculate the annual active mode total energy 
consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, EAGT, in kBtu 
per year, using the following equation:

EAGT = EAGG + (EAGE x Ke)

Where:
EAGG = the conventional gas cooking top annual active 
mode gas energy consumption as determined in section 4.1.2.2.1 of 
this appendix, in kBtu per year;
EAGE = the conventional gas cooking top annual active 
mode electrical energy consumption as determined in section 
4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix, in kilowatt-hours per year; and
Ke is defined in section 4.1.1.2.6 of this appendix.

    4.2 Annual combined low-power mode energy consumption of a 
conventional cooking top and any conventional cooking top component of 
a combined cooking product.
    4.2.1 Conventional cooking top annual combined low-power mode 
energy consumption. Calculate the annual combined low-power mode energy 
consumption for a conventional cooking top, ETLP, in 
kilowatt-hours per year, using the following equation:

ETLP = [(PIA x FIA) + (POM 
x FOM)] x K x ST

Where:

PIA = inactive mode power, in watts, as measured in 
section 3.2.1 of this appendix;
POM = off mode power, in watts, as measured in section 
3.2.2 of this appendix;
FIA and FOM are the portion of annual hours 
spent in inactive mode and off mode hours respectively, as defined 
in Table 4.2.1 of this appendix;
K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; 
and
ST = 8,544, total number of inactive mode and off mode 
hours per year for a conventional cooking top.

                  Table 4.2.1--Annual Hour Multipliers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Types of low-power mode(s) available          FIA             FOM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both inactive and off mode..............             0.5             0.5
Inactive mode only......................               1               0
Off mode only...........................               0               1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4.2.2 Conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking 
product annual combined low-power mode energy consumption. Calculate 
the annual combined low-power mode energy consumption for the 
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, 
ETLP, in kilowatt-hours per year, using the following 
equation:

ETLP = [(PIA x FIA) + (POM 
x FOM)] x K x STOT x HC

Where:

 PIA, POM, FIA, FOM, and 
K are defined in section 4.2.1 of this appendix;
STOT = the total number of inactive mode and off mode 
hours per year for a combined cooking product, as defined in Table 
4.2.2 of this appendix; and
HC = the percentage of hours per year assigned to the 
conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as 
defined in Table 4.2.2 of this appendix.

           Table 4.2.2--Combined Cooking Product Usage Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Type of combined cooking product           STOT             HC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooking top and conventional oven                  8,392              60
 (conventional range)...................
Cooking top and microwave oven..........           8,481              77
Cooking top, conventional oven, and                8,329              51
 microwave oven.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4.3 Integrated annual energy consumption of a conventional cooking 
top and any conventional cooking top component of a combined cooking 
product.
    4.3.1 Conventional electric cooking top integrated annual energy 
consumption. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption, IAEC, 
of a conventional electric cooking top, in kilowatt-hours per year, 
using the following equation:

IAEC = EAET + ETLP

Where:

EAET = the conventional electric cooking top annual 
active mode energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.2.1 of 
this appendix; and
ETLP = the annual combined low-power mode energy 
consumption of a conventional cooking top or any conventional 
cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as determined 
in section 4.2 of this appendix.

    4.3.2 Conventional gas cooking top integrated annual energy 
consumption. Calculate the integrated annual energy consumption, IAEC, 
of a conventional gas cooking top, in kBtu per year, defined as:


[[Page 51548]]


    IAEC = EAGT + (ETLP x Ke)

Where:

 EAGT = the conventional gas cooking top annual active 
mode total energy consumption, as determined in section 4.1.2.2.3 of 
this appendix;
ETLP = the annual combined low-power mode energy 
consumption of a conventional cooking top or any conventional 
cooking top component of a combined cooking product, as determined 
in section 4.2 of this appendix; and
Ke is defined in section 4.1.1.2.6 of this appendix.

[FR Doc. 2022-15725 Filed 8-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.