[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39211-39220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16892]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 39211]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
RIN 1904-AE36
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 25, 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
published a notification of petition from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to withdraw, and immediately stay the
effectiveness of, the conventional cooking top test procedure. Based on
the review of public comments and data received in response to this
petition, DOE proposes to withdraw the test procedure for conventional
cooking tops established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA). DOE has tentatively determined that the conventional cooking
top test procedure may not accurately represent consumer use for gas
cooking tops, may not be repeatable or reproducible for both gas and
electric cooking tops, and is overly burdensome to conduct.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before
October 8, 2019. DOE will hold a public meeting on this proposed rule.
The details for that public meeting will be provided in a subsequent
notice published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments,
identified by ``[Test Procedure for Cooking Products],'' by any of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004 and/or RIN 1904-AE36 in the subject line of
the message.
3. Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please
submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
586-6636. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Sher, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585. Email: [email protected]; (202) 287-6122.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE intends to include the following
industry standards, previously incorporated by reference into 10 CFR
part 430:
(1) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301,
Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,''
Publication 62301 (First Edition 2005-06).
(2) IEC 62301 Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power, (Edition 2.0 2011-01).
Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition) and IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W
43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to
http://webstore.ansi.org.
See Section IV.M. for a further discussion of these standards.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Description of Material Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Kitchen ranges and ovens are included in the list of ``covered
products'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy
conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.2 include definitions for ``cooking
products,'' which cover cooking appliances that use gas, electricity,
or microwave energy as the source of heat; as well as specific types of
cooking products, including conventional cooking tops, conventional
ovens, microwave ovens, and other cooking products. DOE's energy
conservation standards and test procedures for cooking products are
currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10 CFR 430.23(i),
respectively. (Note that DOE does not currently have an energy
conservation standard for cooktops.) The following sections discuss
DOE's authority to establish test procedures for cooking products and
relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration to
withdraw the test procedures for conventional cooking tops.
A. Authority
Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than
[[Page 39212]]
Automobiles,\2\ a program covering most major household appliances,
which includes cooking products, and specifically conventional cooking
tops,\3\ the subject of this NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
\3\ Conventional cooking top means a class of kitchen ranges and
ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a
horizontal surface containing one or more surface units which
include either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. This
includes any conventional cooking top component of a combined
cooking product. 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer
products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE's test procedures for conventional cooking tops
are codified at appendix I to subpart B of title 10 of the CFR part 430
(``appendix I'').
B. Background
DOE originally established test procedures for cooking products in
a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1978. 43 FR
20108, 20120-20128. DOE revised its test procedures for cooking
products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy use,
and published the revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 (Oct.
3, 1997). These test procedure amendments included: (1) A reduction in
the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the number of
self-clean oven cycles per year; and (3) incorporation of portions of
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 705-1988,
``Methods for measuring the performance of microwave ovens for
household and similar purposes,'' and Amendment 2-1993 for the testing
of microwave ovens.\4\ The test procedures for consumer cooking
products establish provisions for determining estimated annual
operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio of cooking
energy output to cooking energy input), and energy factor (defined as
the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to total annual energy
input). 10 CFR 430.23(i); appendix I. Aside from the provisions for
measuring standby power of microwave ovens, all other provisions for
consumer cooking products are not currently used for compliance with
any energy conservation standards because the present standards are
design requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE subsequently withdrew the test procedures for measuring
the active mode of microwave ovens in a July 22, 2010 final rule. 75
FR 42579. DOE has adopted test procedure provisions to measure the
standby and off mode energy use of microwave ovens. See 78 FR 4015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off
mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (i.e., fan-only
mode) testing provisions, for consumer cooking products. DOE published
a final rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the ``October 2012 TP
Final Rule''), adopting standby and off mode provisions that satisfy
the EPCA requirement that DOE include measures of standby mode and off
mode power in its test procedures for residential products, if
technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
On January 30, 2013, DOE published a NOPR (78 FR 6232, the
``January 2013 TP NOPR'') proposing amendments to appendix I that would
allow for testing the active mode energy consumption of induction
cooking products; i.e., conventional cooking tops equipped with
induction heating technology for one or more surface units on the
cooking top. DOE proposed to incorporate induction cooking tops by
amending the definition of ``conventional cooking top'' to include
induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to require for
all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with induction
technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid aluminum
test blocks specified at that time in the test procedure for cooking
tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: An
aluminum body and a stainless steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30,
2013).
On December 3, 2014, DOE published an SNOPR (the ``December 2014 TP
SNOPR''), in which DOE modified its proposal from the January 2013 TP
NOPR in response to comments from interested parties to specify
different test equipment that would allow for measuring the energy
efficiency of induction cooking tops, and would include an additional
test block size for electric surface units with large diameters (both
induction and electric resistance). 79 FR 71894. In addition, DOE
proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface units, electric
surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface
induction cooking tops. Id. In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also
proposed amendments to add a larger test block size to test gas cooking
top burners with higher input rates. Id.
In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed methods for
measuring conventional oven volume, clarification that the existing
oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input
rate, and a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of
conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec.
3, 2014). DOE published the July 2015 TP Final Rule adopting the test
procedure amendments discussed above for conventional ovens only. 80 FR
37954.
On June 10, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (the ``June 2015 NOPR'')
proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer
conventional ovens. 80 FR 33030. As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR,
DOE received a significant number of comments raising issues with the
repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed hybrid test block
test method for cooking tops in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR
and in separate interviews conducted with consumer cooking product
manufacturers in February and March of 2015. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040
(June 10, 2015). A number of manufacturers that produce and sell
products in Europe supported the use of a water-heating test method and
harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2,
[[Page 39213]]
``Household electric appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Method for measuring
performance'' (``IEC Standard 60350-2'') for measuring the energy
consumption of electric cooking tops. These manufacturers stated that
the test methods in IEC Standard 60350-2 are compatible with all
electric cooking top types, specify additional cookware diameters to
account for the variety of surface unit sizes on the market, and use
test loads that represent real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency
advocates also recommended that DOE require water-heating test methods
to produce a measure of cooking efficiency for conventional cooking
tops that is more representative of actual cooking performance than the
hybrid test block method. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040 (June 10, 2015). For
these reasons, DOE decided to defer its decision regarding adoption of
energy conservation standards for conventional cooking tops until a
representative, repeatable and reproducible test method for cooking
tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030, 33040 (June 10, 2015).
DOE published an additional test procedure SNOPR on August 22, 2016
(81 FR 57374) (the ``August 2016 TP SNOPR'') that proposed amendments
to the test procedures for conventional cooking tops. Given the
feedback from interested parties discussed above and based on the
additional testing and analysis conducted for the test procedure
rulemaking, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for
testing conventional cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead,
DOE proposed to amend its test procedure to incorporate by reference
the relevant sections of IEC Standard 60350-2, which provide a water-
heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric
cooking tops. The test method specifies the quantity of water to be
heated in a standardized test vessel whose size is selected based on
the diameter of the surface unit under test. 81 FR 57374, 57381-57384.
DOE also proposed to extend the test methods provided in European
standard EN 60350-2:2013 ``Household electric cooking appliances Part
2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'' EN 60530-2:2013 to measure
the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by correlating test
equipment diameter to burner input rate, including input rates that
exceed 14,000 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385-57386. In addition, DOE also
proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to include methods for both
electric and gas cooking tops to calculate the annual energy
consumption and the integrated annual energy consumption to account for
the proposed water-heating test method. 81 FR 57374, 57387-57388.
In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to repeal the
conventional oven test procedure. DOE determined that the conventional
oven test procedure may not accurately represent consumer use, as it
favors conventional ovens with low thermal mass and does not capture
cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal mass of
the oven cavity. 81 FR 57374, 57378-57379.
On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule (the ``December
2016 TP Final Rule'') repealing the test procedures for conventional
ovens for the reasons discussed, and adopting the test procedure
amendments for conventional cooking tops proposed in the August 2016 TP
SNOPR that, among other things: (1) Incorporated by reference the
relevant sections of European Standard EN 60350-2:2013, which uses a
water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric
cooking tops; (2) extended the water-heating test method specified in
EN 60350-2:2013 to gas cooking tops; and (3) clarified that the 20-
minute simmering period starts when the water temperature first reaches
90 [deg]C and does not drop below 90 [deg]C for more than 20 seconds
after initially reaching 90 [deg]C. 81 FR 91418.
C. AHAM Petition for Reconsideration
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency shall give an
interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE received a petition from AHAM
requesting that DOE reconsider its December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its
petition, AHAM requested that DOE undertake a rulemaking to withdraw
the test procedure for conventional cooking tops, while maintaining the
repeal of the oven test procedure that was part of the Final Rule. In
the interim, AHAM sought an immediate stay of the effectiveness of the
Final Rule, including the requirement that manufacturers use the final
test procedure to make energy-related claims. In its petition, AHAM
claimed that its analyses showed that the test procedure is not
representative for gas cooking tops and, for gas and electric cooking
tops, has such a high level of variation it will not produce accurate
results for certification and enforcement purposes and will not assist
consumers in making purchasing decisions based on energy efficiency.
DOE published AHAM's petition on April 25, 2018, and requested comments
and information on whether DOE should undertake a rulemaking to
consider the proposal contained in the petition. 80 FR 17944.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to withdraw the test procedure for
conventional cooking tops after evaluating new information and data
produced by AHAM and other interested parties that suggest the test
procedure yields inconsistent results and is unnecessarily burdensome
to conduct. The following discussion addresses substantive comments \5\
received by DOE on AHAM's petition to withdraw the cooking top test
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE received a number of comments that were not relevant to
the topic of AHAM's petition. DOE has not addressed these comments,
as they are outside the scope of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
The current test procedure in Appendix I for cooking products
measures the integrated annual energy consumption of both gas and
electric cooking tops. The integrated annual energy consumption
comprises active mode energy consumption of each surface unit on the
cooking top, as well as the combined low-power mode energy consumption
of the cooking top. In general, to measure the active mode energy
consumption of each surface unit, a specified amount of water is heated
in a vessel at maximum power (``heat-up'' period) until a threshold
temperature is reached, and then the power is turned down such that the
water is left to simmer at just above 90 degrees Centigrade ([deg]C)
for 20 minutes (``simmering'' period). The active mode energy
consumption is the measured energy used during the entire heat-up and
simmering periods.
AHAM asserted in its petition that the current test procedure for
cooking products is (1) not repeatable or reproducible for both gas and
electric cooking tops, (2) is unduly burdensome to conduct, and (3) is
not representative for gas cooking tops. In support of its assertions,
AHAM submitted results from round-robin testing it conducted and data
provided in its petition request. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 9, 16, 28, 39)
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 9, 17, 28, 39''
identifies a written comment: (1) Made by AHAM; (2) recorded in
document number 2 that is filed in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004) and available for review at
www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on pages 9, 17, 28, and 39
of document number 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM asserted in the petition and reiterated in comments that the
test procedure is not repeatable nor
[[Page 39214]]
reproducible for gas cooking tops. AHAM's round robin testing of four
laboratories showed a level of lab-to-lab variation in the cooking top
gas energy consumption among four different cooking top models (3.02%,
3.63%, 9.67%, and 7.99%) that AHAM stated is higher than the acceptable
level of variation, which it assumed to be 2 percent. (AHAM, No. 25 at
p. 4) AHAM's data showed that a large contributor to this variation was
the simmer portion of the test, and AHAM's investigations found that a
possible cause is that the gas flow is highly sensitive to the gas
burner knob position. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 5) BSH Home Appliances
Corporation (BSH), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and GE Appliances
(GEA) also commented that determining the simmer setting is difficult.
BSH found that four or five trials per burner were necessary to find
the correct simmer setting that would keep the water temperature above
90 [deg]C. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 2; GEA, No. 26
at p. 3) GEA found that two to six trials per burner were necessary to
find the correct simmer setting. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 3) Whirlpool also
commented that it experienced problems with accuracy in determining the
turndown temperature, particularly in instances where a technician was
performing multiple tasks in the laboratory and not paying strict
attention to water temperatures. (Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 2) AHAM and
Whirlpool also commented that DOE did not address pan warpage as a
possible factor in repeatability. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 38; Whirlpool, No.
20 at p. 4)
AHAM asserted in its petition that DOE did not properly conduct a
round robin test to ensure the test procedure is reproducible. AHAM
commented that DOE only changed testers but used the same laboratory
equipment, which AHAM asserted is insufficient for demonstrating
reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 17) Whirlpool, BSH, GEA, and
Electrolux Home Products (Electrolux) agreed with AHAM's comment
regarding DOE's round robin test. (Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 2; BSH, No.
22 at p. 2; GEA, No. 26 at p. 4; Electrolux, No. 21 at p. 2)
AHAM also asserted in the petition that the current test procedure
is not repeatable or reproducible for electric cooking tops. AHAM
stated that DOE did not properly evaluate element cycling in electric
cooking tops, which could affect the repeatability of the test
procedure. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 34) GEA, Whirlpool, BSH, and Electrolux
agreed with this in their comments. (GEA, No. 26 at pp. 3-4; Whirlpool,
No. 20 at p. 2; BSH, No. 22 at p. 3; Electrolux, No. 21 at p. 2)
Additionally, AHAM noted that new voluntary Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) safety standards (UL 858) could require redesigning the element
cycling, which could further cause repeatability issues with the test
procedure. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 36-37) BSH and Electrolux indicated it
was unknown at that time how new electric cooking tops would respond
due to the new safety standards. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 5; Electrolux, No.
21 at p. 2) Whirlpool indicated design changes to coil elements were
required to meet UL 858, which resulted in increased cycling frequency
over shorter durations. (Whirlpool, No. 20 at p. 3)
AHAM also asserted in its petition that the test procedure is
overly burdensome, and that DOE underestimated the amount of burden
imposed by the test procedure. Specifically, AHAM stated that the
required test vessels would cost $9,500 per set for each laboratory,
and that the laboratory infrastructure would have to be significantly
upgraded to maintain the air temperature tolerance of 2
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F),\7\ as some current laboratories can only
maintain 5 [deg]F. (AHAM, No. 2 at pp. 20, 42) Felix
Storch, Inc. submitted a comment in support of the AHAM petition, and
stated that the fixed costs of the test procedure would have a greater
impact for small business that produce lower volumes. (Felix Storch,
No. 10 at p. 1) BSH and GEA both commented that the test procedure
would require substantial improvements to their laboratories to meet
these requirements. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 5; GEA, No. 26 at p. 7)
Additionally, AHAM reported that testing time for a gas cooking top
ranged from 23-26 hours per unit. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 2) GEA found that
the test procedure required 18 hours, on average, to test a four-burner
cooking top. (GEA, No. 26 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The test procedure adopted in the December 2016 TP Final
Rule specifies an ambient air temperature tolerance of 2
[deg]C, which is equivalent to 3.6 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM also asserted in its petition that the test procedure is not
representative for gas cooking tops. It commented that Europe uses a
different test standard for gas cooking tops, which differs from the
test standard for electric cooking tops, because the simmering and
heat-up characteristics vary for different electric cooking top
technologies (e.g., coil, smooth-radiant, smooth-induction), whereas
there are not different types of gas heating technologies. (AHAM, No. 2
at p. 10) Therefore, according to AHAM, gas cooking top testing does
not require a simmer portion in the test. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 15)
Additionally, AHAM asserted that the stainless steel cooking vessels
used for electric testing are not appropriate for gas cooking top
testing, because stainless steel has a lower level of conduction than
aluminum. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 14) BSH similarly asserted that the
cookware used for electric cooking tops would not be representative for
gas cooking tops. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 4) AHAM also stated that some
burners are optimized for specific cooking purposes, and a water
boiling test is not representative of how these burners are actually
used. AHAM commented that small burners take 35-37 minutes to reach 90
[deg]C, which is unacceptable for consumers. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 3) BSH
and Electrolux commented that water boiling is not representative of
all gas cooking top use. (BSH, No. 22 at p. 4; Electrolux, No. 21 at p.
3)
DOE also received a joint submission from Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison
(California Investor Owned Utilities (CAIOUs)) and a joint submission
from Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumers Union, National
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (Joint Advocates). The CAIOUs and Joint
Advocates stated they are not aware of any information to suggest that
consumers actually use gas cooking tops differently from electric
cooking tops, and further stated that the test procedure should be
aligned between those two products. (CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 2; Joint
Advocates, No. 24 at p. 1) The CAIOUs and Joint Advocates support the
process DOE went through in developing the test procedure, which they
stated was rigorous and which included multiple rounds of comments from
stakeholders and appropriate modifications to the test procedure in
response to these comments. (CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 1; Joint Advocates,
No. 24 at p. 1) The CAIOUs and Joint Advocates also support DOE's
original testing and conclusions about repeatability, with the CAIOUs
stating that they agree with DOE's data indicating that the coefficient
of variation in test results is less than 2.0 percent if the test
procedure is followed correctly. (CAIOU, No. 15 at pp. 2, 3; Joint
Advocates No. 24 at p. 3) The CAIOUs and Joint Advocates stated that
AHAM's round robin testing is different from the actual test procedure,
so no conclusion can be drawn from AHAM's data. The CAIOUs and Joint
Advocates
[[Page 39215]]
pointed to round robin testing conducted by the European Committee of
Domestic Equipment Manufacturers that DOE evaluated in its rulemaking,
with the Joint Advocates suggesting that DOE could conduct its own
round robin testing to confirm that the test procedure is repeatable
and reproducible. (CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 24 at
pp. 2, 3)
DOE is conducting additional testing, including for gas cooktops,
in response to these stakeholder comments. These additional tests will
evaluate both test-to-test repeatability and lab-to-lab
reproducibility.
To date, DOE has completed testing of ten electric cooking tops to
investigate issues raised in AHAM's petition. For a subset of these
tests, DOE specifically evaluated repeatability of test results. Table
III.1 summarizes the results of testing DOE conducted subsequent to
receipt of the AHAM petition in which DOE performed multiple test
replications on a single burner (i.e. ``surface unit''). Table III.1
indicates that the coefficient of variation for each surface unit's
energy consumption was no greater than 2 percent for all the units in
the test sample.
Table III.1--Summary of Repeatability Tests for Electric Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
surface unit
Cooking top unit Heating element Surface unit Number of test test energy Coefficient of
type location replications consumption variation (%)
(Wh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Smooth--Radiant. BL............. 10 191.7 2.0
2............................ Smooth--Radiant. BR............. 4 196.3 1.3
FL............. 2 400.6 1.0
3............................ Smooth--Radiant. FL............. 2 365.9 0.3
4............................ Smooth--Inductio FL............. 2 340.9 1.3
n.
5............................ Smooth--Inductio BL............. 3 348.2 0.7
n.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE examined the specific behavior of electric
cooking tops within its test sample that exhibit cycling behavior. For
these test units, the control algorithm turns the heating element on
and off intermittently during the heat-up period, typically in order to
prevent excessive cooking top surface temperatures. Table III.2
summarizes these results for a representative electric cooking top that
exhibited varying degrees of cycling behavior during testing.
Table III.2--Summary of Cycling Tests on Electric Cooking Top Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat-up
Test replication Cycling speed * energy
(Wh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Slow................... 143.3
2................................... Medium................. 147.0
3................................... Fast................... 147.0
4................................... Fast................... 146.2
5................................... Slow................... 146.2
6................................... Slow................... 144.8
7................................... Slow................... 142.7
8................................... very fast.............. 144.6
9................................... Fast................... 145.0
10.................................. medium................. 146.7
Coefficient of Variation............ ....................... 1.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The qualitative cycling speed is based on the duty cycle frequency,
ranging from around 0.5 cycles/min for ``slow'', to more than 3 cycles/
min for ``very fast.''
The results in Table III.2 indicate that the manner in which an
electric cooking top surface unit cycled during the heat-up period
could vary between tests (i.e., the pattern and frequency of heating
element on-off cycles varied).
DOE estimated the time required for performing the test procedure
in appendix I. Based on its testing, DOE estimates that a single
cooking top surface unit requires around six 90-minute test periods to
conduct the complete test procedure, which includes about an hour of
cool-down per test period. In total, a cooking top with four surface
units requires around 36 work-hours to complete, of which 12 hours
require active monitoring by the testing technician.
DOE recognizes that the results of its testing and the results
achieved by AHAM show differences have causes yet to be identified.
Certainly both sets of tests were conducted by skilled technicians who
understand both the product and the test requirements. DOE tentatively
determines that existence of these differences suggests that additional
investigation of repeatability and reproducibility of the test
procedure is warranted. Further, DOE believes that differences in test
results are indicative of the test not being representative of energy
use or efficiency during an average use cycle. As such, it would be
unduly burdensome to subject those manufacturers seeking to make
representations as to the efficiency of their products to the
requirement to conduct such tests while DOE investigates the issues
presented.
Therefore, DOE proposes to withdraw the cooking top test procedure
in appendix I to subpart B of part 430. Upon consideration of the
comments received, DOE will determine whether to proceed with a final
rule to withdraw the test procedure. Because a DOE test method is
necessary to develop a performance-based energy conservation standard,
if DOE were to ultimately withdraw the test procedure, DOE would need
to conduct additional testing and gather additional data to determine
any appropriate test procedure for use in developing a subsequent
energy conservation standard.
Both the CAIOUs and Joint Advocates asserted that since there is
not a performance-based efficiency standard for cooking tops, there is
no need to stay the effectiveness of the test procedure. (CAIOU, No. 15
at p. 3; Joint Advocates, No. 24 at pp. 1,4) DOE notes that EPCA
requires that a manufacturer making representations of efficiency must
use the DOE test procedure, even if there is no standard. Thus, there
may be a cost to leaving in place a test procedure that yields
inconsistent results and is unnecessarily burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)) Both the CAIOUs and Joint Advocates also stated that
the cooking top test procedure is necessary for consumers to make
informed purchasing choices relative to energy use and efficiency.
(CAIOU, No. 15 at p. 3; Joint Advocates, No. 24 at pp. 1, 4) However,
this statement is true only if the test procedure yields accurate
results. Multiple commenters have submitted data and information
indicating that repeated attempts to follow the test procedure lead to
inaccurate results. This suggests that the cooking products test
procedure, as conducted by testing laboratories that
[[Page 39216]]
may not be familiar with its provisions, does not provide information
that is potentially beneficial to consumers.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
NOPR constitutes a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735
(Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review under
the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the OMB.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' The
E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent
and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both
public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated that it is essential to
manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' E.O. 13777 required
the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory
Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of
regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies
effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable
law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory
task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to
make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal,
replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with
applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must
attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other
Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or
substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this rulemaking, which would repeal
the test procedure for cooktops on the basis that it does not meet the
EPCA requirement that a test procedure be designed to measure energy
use or efficiency during a representative average use cycle or period
of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct, is consistent with the
directives set forth in these executive orders. This action is expected
to be a deregulatory action consistent with E.O. 13771 because
manufacturers wanting to make voluntary representations of energy
efficiency would be required to use the test procedure, which DOE has
found does not comport with the statutory requirements. Repeal of the
test procedure would allow manufacturers making voluntary
representations to determine the best way to make such representations,
until such time as DOE promulgates, through rulemaking, a new test
procedure.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed the proposed withdrawal of the cooking tops test
procedure under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business
size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS). The SBA considers a business entity to
be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less
than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. The
2017 NAICS code for cooking tops is 335210, small electrical appliance
manufacturing. The threshold number for NAICS code 335210 is 1,500
employees. This employee threshold includes all employees in a
business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers
of products covered by this rulemaking. DOE primarily used the
Compliance Certification Database in DOE's Compliance Certification
Management System for cooking products to create a list of companies
that sell cooking tops. DOE identified a total of 24 distinct companies
that sell cooking tops in the United States.
DOE reviewed these companies to determine whether the entities met
the SBA's definition of ``small business'' and screened out any
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and
operated. Based on this review, DOE has identified 12 domestic
manufacturers of cooking tops that are potential small businesses.
Through this analysis, DOE has determined the expected effects of this
rulemaking on these covered small businesses and whether an IRFA was
needed (i.e., whether DOE could certify that this rulemaking would not
have a significant impact).
DOE is proposing to withdraw the cooking tops test procedure for
manufacturers. This would not increase manufacturer's testing burden or
add any costs to any manufacturers, small or large. Therefore, DOE
concludes that the impacts of this proposal would not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE
will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of cooking tops must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according
to the DOE test procedures for cooking products,
[[Page 39217]]
including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has
established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial
equipment. See generally 10 CFR part 429. The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated
to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for cooking products. DOE has determined that
this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, this proposed rule would revoke the existing test
procedures. The existing test procedures are not used for determining
compliance with an energy conservation standard and as such, their
revocation would not affect the amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental
impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5
under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that
interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the
environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10,
1999), imposes certain requirements on federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt state law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial
direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes federal preemption of state regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297)
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on federal agencies the general duty
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction.
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section
3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2)
clearly specifies any effect on existing federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the
relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each federal agency to assess the effects of federal
regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of state, local, and tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution.
[[Page 39218]]
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a
Family Policymaking Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would
not result in any takings that might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this NOPR under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action to propose the withdrawal of the cooking
products test procedure is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following test standards: (1) IEC 62301, Household electrical
appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Publication 62301 (First
Edition 2005-06), section 5; and (2) IEC 62301 Household electrical
appliances--Measurement of standby power, (Edition 2.0 2011-01),
sections 4 and 5. These standards include test conditions and testing
procedures for measuring the average standby mode and average off mode
power consumption of microwaves and were previously incorporated in
appendix I.
Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition) and IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W
43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to
http://webstore.ansi.org.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this NOPR.
Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
confidential business information or CBI). Comments submitted through
http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or
mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not
want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in
which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses.
[[Page 39219]]
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email to:
[email protected] or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will
make its own determination about the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, without
restriction.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signed in Washington, DC, on: August 1, 2019.
Daniel R Simmons,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 430.3 [Amended]
0
2. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (l); and
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (m) through (v) as (l) through (u).
0
3. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(i) Cooking products. Determine the standby power for microwave
ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of a combined cooking
product, according to section 3.2.1 of appendix I to this subpart.
Round standby power to the nearest 0.1 watt.
* * * * *
0
4. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix I to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Cooking Products
Note: Any representation related to energy or power consumption
of cooking products made after June 14, 2017, must be based upon
results generated under this test procedure. Upon the compliance
date(s) of any energy conservation standard(s) for cooking products,
use of the applicable provisions of this test procedure to
demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standard will
also be required.
1. Definitions
The following definitions apply to the test procedures in this
appendix, including the test procedures incorporated by reference:
1.1 Active mode means a mode in which the product is connected
to a mains power source, has been activated, and is performing the
main function of producing heat by means of a gas flame, electric
resistance heating, electric inductive heating, or microwave energy.
1.2 Built-in means the product is enclosed in surrounding
cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures on at least three
sides, and can be supported by surrounding cabinetry or the floor.
1.3 Combined cooking product means a household cooking appliance
that combines a cooking product with other appliance functionality,
which may or may not include another cooking product. Combined
cooking products include the following products: Conventional range,
microwave/conventional cooking top, microwave/conventional oven, and
microwave/conventional range.
1.4 Drop-in means the product is supported by horizontal surface
cabinetry.
1.5 IEC 62301 (First Edition) means the test standard published
by the International Electrotechnical Commission, titled ``Household
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Publication
62301 (First Edition 2005-06) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
430.3).
1.6 IEC 62301 (Second Edition) means the test standard published
by the International Electrotechnical Commission, titled ``Household
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Publication
62301 (Edition 2.0 2011-01) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
430.3).
1.7 Normal non-operating temperature means a temperature of all
areas of an appliance to be tested that is within 5 [deg]F (2.8
[deg]C) of the temperature that the identical areas of the same
basic model of the appliance would attain if it remained in the test
room for 24 hours while not operating with all oven doors closed.
1.8 Off mode means any mode in which a cooking product is
connected to a mains power source and is not providing any active
mode or standby function, and where the mode may persist for an
indefinite time. An indicator that only shows the user that the
product is in the off position is included within the classification
of an off mode.
1.9 Standby mode means any mode in which a cooking product is
connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of the
following user-oriented or protective functions which may persist
for an indefinite time:
(1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
(2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or
status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A
timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be
associated with a display) that allows for regularly scheduled tasks
and that operates on a continuous basis.
2. Test Conditions
2.1 Installation. Install a drop-in or built-in cooking product
in a test enclosure in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
If the manufacturer's instructions specify that
[[Page 39220]]
the cooking product may be used in multiple installation conditions,
install the appliance according to the built-in configuration.
Completely assemble the product with all handles, knobs, guards, and
similar components mounted in place. Position any electric
resistance heaters and baffles in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions.
2.1.1 Microwave ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of
a combined cooking product. Install the microwave oven in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions and connect to an electrical
supply circuit with voltage as specified in section 2.2.1 of this
appendix. Install the microwave oven also in accordance with Section
5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding
batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of
relevant modes. A watt meter shall be installed in the circuit and
shall be as described in section 2.6.1.1 of this appendix.
2.2 Energy supply.
2.2.1 Electrical supply.
2.2.1.1 Voltage. For microwave oven testing, maintain the
electrical supply to the unit at 240/120 volts 1
percent. Maintain the electrical supply frequency for all products
at 60 hertz 1 percent.
2.3 Air circulation. Maintain air circulation in the room
sufficient to secure a reasonably uniform temperature distribution,
but do not cause a direct draft on the unit under test.
2.4 Ambient room test conditions
2.4.1 Standby mode and off mode ambient temperature. For standby
mode and off mode testing, maintain room ambient air temperature
conditions as specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3).
2.5 Normal non-operating temperature. All areas of the appliance
to be tested must attain the normal non-operating temperature, as
defined in section 1.7 of this appendix, before any testing begins.
Measure the applicable normal non-operating temperature using the
equipment specified in sections 2.6.2.1 of this appendix.
2.6 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the
following instruments, as appropriate:
2.6.1 Electrical measurements.
2.6.1.1 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter
used to measure standby mode and off mode power must meet the
requirements specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3). For
microwave oven standby mode and off mode testing, if the power
measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and
record the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio
during the test measurement period, measure the crest factor, power
factor, and maximum current ratio immediately before and after the
test measurement period to determine whether these characteristics
meet the requirements specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC
62301 (Second Edition).
2.6.2 Temperature measurement equipment.
2.6.2.1 Room temperature indicating system. For the test of
microwave ovens, the room temperature indicating system must have an
error no greater than 1 [deg]F (0.6 [deg]C)
over the range 65[deg] to 90 [deg]F (18 [deg]C to 32 [deg]C).
3. Test Methods and Measurements
3.1. Test methods.
3.1.1 Microwave oven.
3.1.1.1 Microwave oven test standby mode and off mode power
except for any microwave oven component of a combined cooking
product. Establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2,
Test Conditions, of this appendix. For microwave ovens that drop
from a higher power state to a lower power state as discussed in
Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition)
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3), allow sufficient time
for the microwave oven to reach the lower power state before
proceeding with the test measurement. Follow the test procedure as
specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second
Edition). For units in which power varies as a function of displayed
time in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 and use the average
power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC
62301 (First Edition), but with a single test period of 10 minutes
+0/-2 sec after an additional stabilization period until the clock
time reaches 3:33. If a microwave oven is capable of operation in
either standby mode or off mode, as defined in sections 1.9 and 1.8
of this appendix, respectively, or both, test the microwave oven in
each mode in which it can operate.
3.2 Test measurements.
3.2.1 Microwave oven standby mode and off mode power except for
any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Make
measurements as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3). If
the microwave oven is capable of operating in standby mode, as
defined in section 1.9 of this appendix, measure the average standby
mode power of the microwave oven, PSB, in watts as specified in
section 3.1.1.1 of this appendix. If the microwave oven is capable
of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.8 of this
appendix, measure the average off mode power of the microwave oven,
POM, as specified in section 3.1.1.1.
3.3 Recorded values.
3.3.1 For microwave ovens except for any microwave oven
component of a combined cooking product, record the average standby
mode power, PSB, for the microwave oven standby mode, as determined
in section 3.2.1 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of
operating in standby mode. Record the average off mode power, POM,
for the microwave oven off mode power test, as determined in section
3.2.1 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of operating in
off mode.
[FR Doc. 2019-16892 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P