[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50757-50767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16102]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

RIN 1904-AE36


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On August 9, 2019, as a result of a petition from the 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and data received in 
response to that petition, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to withdraw 
the test procedure for conventional cooking tops established under the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). In this final rule, DOE 
withdraws the test procedure for conventional cooking tops under EPCA. 
DOE has determined that the conventional cooking tops test procedure is 
not representative of energy use or efficiency during an average use 
cycle and is overly burdensome to conduct.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is September 17, 2020. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule 
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on April 8, 2011 
and December 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the 
index may not be publicly available, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041. The docket web page contains simple 
instructions on how to access all documents in the docket.

[[Page 50758]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 
DC 20585. Email: [email protected]; (202) 287-6122.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE includes the following industry 
standards, previously incorporated by reference into 10 CFR part 430:
    (1) International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, 
Household electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' 
Publication 62301 (First Edition 2005-06).
    (2) IEC 62301 Household electrical appliances--Measurement of 
standby power, (Edition 2.0 2011-01).
    Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition) and IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 
can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 
43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to 
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
    C. AHAM Petition for Reconsideration
II. Synopsis of Final Rule
III. Discussion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 658
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999
    J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
    N. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 667

I. Authority and Background

    Kitchen ranges and ovens are included in the list of ``covered 
products'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy 
conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) 
DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.2 include definitions for ``cooking 
products,'' which cover cooking appliances that use gas, electricity, 
or microwave energy as the source of heat; as well as specific types of 
cooking products, including conventional cooking tops, conventional 
ovens, microwave ovens, and other cooking products. DOE's energy 
conservation standards and test procedures for cooking products are 
currently prescribed at 10 CFR 430.32(j) and 10 CFR 430.23(i), 
respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to 
establish test procedures for cooking products and relevant background 
information regarding DOE's determination to withdraw the test 
procedures for conventional cooking tops.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles,\2\ a program covering most major 
household appliances, which includes cooking products, and specifically 
conventional cooking tops,\3\ the subject of this rule. (42 U.S.C. 
6292(a)(10))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
    \3\ Conventional cooking top means a class of kitchen ranges and 
ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a 
horizontal surface containing one or more surface units which 
include either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. This 
includes any conventional cooking top component of a combined 
cooking product. 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially 
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy 
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 
6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 
6294), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) 
Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), 
and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer 
products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test 
procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant 
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or 
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual 
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use 
cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE's test procedures for conventional cooking tops 
are codified at appendix I to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (``appendix 
I'').

B. Background

    DOE originally established test procedures for cooking products in 
a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 
20108, 20120-20128. DOE revised its test procedures for cooking 
products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy use, 
and published the revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 (Oct. 
3, 1997). These test procedure amendments included: (1) A reduction in 
the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the number of 
self-clean oven cycles per year; and (3) incorporation of portions of 
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 705-1988, 
``Methods for measuring the performance of microwave ovens for 
household and similar purposes,'' and Amendment 2-1993 for the testing 
of microwave ovens.\4\ The test procedures for consumer cooking 
products established provisions for determining estimated annual 
operating cost, cooking efficiency (defined as the ratio of cooking 
energy output to cooking energy input), and energy factor

[[Page 50759]]

(defined as the ratio of annual useful cooking energy output to total 
annual energy input) at 10 CFR 430.23(i) and appendix I. As described 
in the following discussion, aside from the provisions for measuring 
standby power of microwave ovens, all other provisions for consumer 
cooking products are not currently used for compliance with any energy 
conservation standards because the present standards are design 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE subsequently withdrew the test procedures for measuring 
the active mode of microwave ovens in a July 22, 2010 final rule. 75 
FR 42579. DOE has adopted test procedure provisions to measure the 
standby and off mode energy use of microwave ovens. See 78 FR 4015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off 
mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode (i.e., fan-only 
mode) testing provisions, for consumer conventional cooking products. 
DOE published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, the 
``October 2012 TP Final Rule''), adopting standby and off mode 
provisions that satisfy the EPCA requirement that DOE include measures 
of standby mode and off mode power in its test procedures for 
residential products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(2)(A))
    On January 30, 2013, DOE published a NOPR (78 FR 6232, the 
``January 2013 TP NOPR'') proposing amendments to appendix I that would 
allow for testing the active mode energy consumption of induction 
cooking products; i.e., conventional cooking tops equipped with 
induction heating technology for one or more surface units on the 
cooking top. DOE proposed to incorporate induction cooking tops by 
amending the definition of ``conventional cooking top'' to include 
induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to require for 
all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with induction 
technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid aluminum 
test blocks specified at that time in the test procedure for cooking 
tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: An 
aluminum body and a stainless steel base. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30, 
2013).
    On December 3, 2014, DOE published an SNOPR (the ``December 2014 TP 
SNOPR''), in which DOE modified its proposal from the January 2013 TP 
NOPR in response to comments from interested parties to specify 
different test equipment that would allow for measuring the energy 
efficiency of induction cooking tops, and would include an additional 
test block size for electric surface units with large diameters (both 
induction and electric resistance). 79 FR 71894. In addition, DOE 
proposed methods to test non-circular electric surface units, electric 
surface units with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface 
induction cooking tops. Id. In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also 
proposed amendments to add a larger test block size to test gas cooking 
top burners with higher input rates. Id.
    In the December 2014 TP SNOPR, DOE also proposed methods for 
measuring conventional oven volume, clarification that the existing 
oven test block must be used to test all ovens regardless of input 
rate, and a method to measure the energy consumption and efficiency of 
conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator. 79 FR 71894 (Dec. 
3, 2014). DOE published the July 2015 TP Final Rule adopting the test 
procedure amendments discussed above for conventional ovens only. 80 FR 
37954.
    On June 10, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (the ``June 2015 NOPR'') 
proposing new and amended energy conservation standards for consumer 
conventional ovens. 80 FR 33030. As discussed in the June 2015 NOPR, 
DOE received a significant number of comments raising issues with the 
repeatability and reproducibility of the proposed hybrid test block 
test method for cooking tops in response to the December 2014 TP SNOPR 
and in separate interviews conducted with consumer cooking product 
manufacturers in February and March of 2015. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040 
(June 10, 2015). A number of manufacturers that produce and sell 
products in Europe supported the use of a water-heating test method and 
harmonization with IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2, ``Household electric 
appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Method for measuring performance'' (``IEC 
Standard 60350-2'') for measuring the energy consumption of electric 
cooking tops. These manufacturers stated their view that the test 
methods in IEC Standard 60350-2 are compatible with all electric 
cooking top types, specify additional cookware diameters to account for 
the variety of surface unit sizes on the market, and use test loads 
that represent real-world cooking top loads. Efficiency advocates also 
recommended that DOE require water-heating test methods to produce a 
measure of cooking efficiency for conventional cooking tops that is 
more representative of actual cooking performance than the hybrid test 
block method. 80 FR 33030, 33039-33040 (June 10, 2015). For these 
reasons, DOE decided to defer its decision regarding adoption of energy 
conservation standards for conventional cooking tops until a 
representative, repeatable and reproducible test method for cooking 
tops was finalized. 80 FR 33030, 33040 (June 10, 2015).
    DOE published an additional test procedure SNOPR on August 22, 2016 
(81 FR 57374) (the ``August 2016 TP SNOPR'') that proposed amendments 
to the test procedures for conventional cooking tops. Given the 
feedback from interested parties discussed above and based on the 
additional testing and analysis conducted for the test procedure 
rulemaking, in the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE withdrew its proposal for 
testing conventional cooking tops with a hybrid test block. Instead, 
DOE proposed to amend its test procedure to incorporate by reference 
the relevant sections of European standard EN 60350-2:2013, which 
provide a water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption 
of electric cooking tops. The test method specifies the quantity of 
water to be heated in a standardized test vessel whose size is selected 
based on the diameter of the surface unit under test. 81 FR 57374, 
57381-57384.
    DOE also proposed to extend the test methods provided in EN 60530-
2:2013 to measure the energy consumption of gas cooking tops by 
correlating test equipment diameter to burner input rate, including 
input rates that exceed 14,000 Btu/h. 81 FR 57374, 57385-57386. In 
addition, DOE also proposed in the August 2016 TP SNOPR to include 
methods for both electric and gas cooking tops to calculate the annual 
energy consumption and the integrated annual energy consumption to 
account for the proposed water-heating test method. 81 FR 57374, 57387-
57388.
    In the August 2016 TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to repeal the 
conventional oven test procedure. DOE determined that the conventional 
oven test procedure may not accurately represent consumer use, as it 
favored conventional ovens with low thermal mass and did not capture 
cooking performance-related benefits due to increased thermal mass of 
the oven cavity. 81 FR 57374, 57378-57379.
    On December 16, 2016, DOE published a final rule (the ``December 
2016 TP Final Rule'') repealing the test procedures for conventional 
ovens for the reasons discussed, and adopting the test procedure 
amendments for conventional cooking tops proposed in the August 2016 TP 
SNOPR that, among other things: (1) Incorporated by reference the 
relevant sections of European Standard EN 60350-2:2013, which uses a 
water-heating test method to measure the energy consumption of electric 
cooking tops; (2) extended the water-heating test method specified in 
EN 60350-2:2013 to gas cooking tops; and (3) clarified that the 20-
minute simmering period starts when the water

[[Page 50760]]

temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C and does not drop below 90 [deg]C 
for more than 20 seconds after initially reaching 90 [deg]C. 81 FR 
91418.

C. AHAM Petition for Reconsideration

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 
provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency shall give an 
interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or 
repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE received a petition from AHAM 
requesting that DOE reconsider its December 2016 TP Final Rule. In its 
petition, AHAM requested that DOE undertake a rulemaking to withdraw 
the cooking top test procedure, while maintaining the repeal of the 
oven test procedure that was part of the Final Rule. In the interim, 
AHAM sought an immediate stay of the effectiveness of the Final Rule, 
including the requirement that manufacturers use the final test 
procedure to make energy-related claims. In its petition, AHAM claimed 
that its analyses showed that the test procedure adopted in the 
December 2016 TP Final Rule is not representative for gas cooking tops 
and, for gas and electric cooking tops, has such a high level of 
variation it will not produce accurate results for certification and 
enforcement purposes and will not assist consumers in making purchasing 
decisions based on energy efficiency. DOE published AHAM's petition on 
April 25, 2018, and requested comments and information on whether DOE 
should undertake a rulemaking to consider the proposal contained in the 
petition. 80 FR 17944. Based on the review of public comments and data 
received in response to AHAM's petition, on August 9, 2019, DOE 
published a NOPR proposing to withdraw the test procedure for 
conventional cooking tops (the ``August 2019 NOPR''). In that NOPR, DOE 
tentatively determined that the conventional cooking tops test 
procedure may not accurately represent consumer use for gas cooking 
tops, may not be repeatable or reproducible for both gas and electric 
cooking tops, and is overly burdensome to conduct. DOE held a public 
meeting on October 9, 2019 to hear oral comments and solicit 
information and data relevant to the August 2019 NOPR.
    The following sections of this preamble respond to comments 
received on the August 2019 NOPR and during the NOPR public meeting.

II. Synopsis of Final Rule

    In this rule, DOE withdraws the test procedure for conventional 
cooking tops because testing conducted by DOE and outside parties using 
that test procedure yields inconsistent results. As a result, the 
outcomes of such testing are unreliable and it is unduly burdensome to 
leave that test procedure in place and require cooking top tests be 
conducted using that test method without further study to resolve those 
inconsistencies.

III. Discussion

    The current test procedure in appendix I for cooking tops measures 
the integrated annual energy consumption of both gas and electric 
cooking tops. The integrated annual energy consumption comprises active 
mode energy consumption of each surface unit on the cooking top, as 
well as the combined low-power mode energy consumption of the cooking 
top. In general, to measure the active mode energy consumption of each 
surface unit, a specified amount of water is heated in a vessel at 
maximum power (``heat-up'' period) until a threshold temperature is 
reached, and then the power is turned down such that the water is left 
to simmer at just above 90 degrees Centigrade ([deg]C) for 20 minutes 
(``simmering'' period). The active mode energy consumption is the 
measured energy used during the entire heat-up and simmering periods.
    DOE published its August 2019 NOPR proposing to withdraw the 
current test procedure for conventional cooking tops as a result of 
testing data AHAM submitted in its petition and in subsequent comments 
that was inconsistent with DOE's own testing results. With respect to 
gas cooking tops, AHAM's round robin testing of four laboratories 
showed a level of lab-to-lab variation in the cooking top gas energy 
consumption among four different cooking top models (3.02%, 3.63%, 
9.67%, and 7.99%) that AHAM stated is higher than the acceptable level 
of variation, which it assumed to be 2 percent. (AHAM, No. 25 at p. 4) 
\5\ AHAM's data showed that a large contributor to this variation was 
the simmer portion of the test, and AHAM's investigations found that a 
possible cause is that the gas flow is highly sensitive to the gas 
burner knob position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A notation in the form of ``AHAM, No. 25 at p. 4'' 
identifies a written comment: (1) Made by AHAM; (2) recorded in 
document number 25 that is filed in the docket for this rulemaking 
(Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004) and available for review at http://www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on page 4 of document 
number 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM also asserted in the petition that DOE did not properly 
evaluate element cycling in electric cooking tops, which could affect 
the repeatability of the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 34) As 
discussed in the August 2019 NOPR, DOE conducted testing of ten 
electric cooking tops to investigate issues raised in AHAM's petition. 
See 84 FR 39215. For a subset of these tests, DOE specifically examined 
repeatability of test results. DOE performed multiple test replications 
on a set of individual heating elements (i.e., ``surface units''), and 
its test results indicated that the coefficient of variation for each 
surface unit's energy consumption was no greater than 2 percent for all 
the units in the test sample. Table I summarizes these results.

                        Table I--Summary of Repeatability Tests for Electric Cooking Tops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Average
                                                                                   surface unit
       Cooking top unit         Heating element    Surface unit   Number of test    test energy   Coefficient of
                                     type            location      replications     consumption    variation (%)
                                                                                       (Wh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  Smooth--Radiant.  BL.............              10           191.7             2.0
2............................  Smooth--Radiant.  BR.............               4           196.3             1.3
                                                 FL.............               2           400.6             1.0
3............................  Smooth--Radiant.  FL.............               2           365.9             0.3
4............................  Smooth--Inductio  FL.............               2           340.9             1.3
                                n.
5............................  Smooth--Inductio  BL.............               3           348.2             0.7
                                n.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50761]]

    As further discussed in the August 2019 NOPR, DOE also performed 
multiple tests on a single electric cooking top surface unit addressing 
the issue of element cycling in response to AHAM's petition. See 84 FR 
39215. Table II summarizes these results.

     Table II--Summary of Cycling Tests on Electric Cooking Top Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Heat-up energy
         Test replication              Cycling speed *         (Wh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  slow................           143.2
2.................................  medium..............           147.0
3.................................  fast................           147.0
4.................................  fast................           146.2
5.................................  slow................           146.2
6.................................  slow................           144.8
7.................................  slow................           142.7
8.................................  very fast...........           144.6
9.................................  fast................           145.0
10................................  medium..............           146.7
Coefficient of Variation..........  ....................            1.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The qualitative cycling speed is based on the duty cycle frequency,
  ranging from around 0.5 cycles/min for ``slow'', to more than 3 cycles/
  min for ``very fast.''

    DOE recognized that both its tests and AHAM's were conducted by 
skilled technicians who understand both the product and test 
requirements. DOE tentatively concluded in the August 2019 NOPR that 
the differences in its testing results and the results achieved by AHAM 
suggested that additional investigation of repeatability and 
reproducibility of the test procedure was warranted. DOE stated its 
belief that the differences in test results were indicative of the test 
not being representative of energy use or efficiency during an average 
use cycle, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA. 84 FR 39215.
    In support of DOE's August 2019 NOPR to withdraw the cooking tops 
test procedure, AHAM re-submitted its prior comments on its petition as 
well as new comments that its test data demonstrate that DOE's cooking 
top test procedure does not produce accurate, reproducible, and 
representative results, and is overly burdensome to conduct. (AHAM, No. 
35 at p. 2) With regard to representativeness, AHAM asserted that the 
test procedure is not representative of consumer use as required under 
42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), particularly for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 35 
at p. 4, Exhibit B at pp. 2-3) AHAM stated that, among other things, 
small burners are not typically used for boiling water, but that is 
what DOE's cooking tops test procedure measures. Id. AHAM reiterated 
its previous argument that DOE extended a test meant for electric 
cooking tops to gas cooking tops without doing sufficient study to 
determine whether the electric test procedure it adopted would measure 
representative results for gas cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A 
at p. 10, Exhibit B at p. 2) AHAM commented that separate international 
and industry standards exist for gas cooking tops, and both these 
methods use a ``bring to boil'' test, as opposed to a simmer test. 
(AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at p. 12) AHAM asserted that the residual 
heat loss of a gas burner on simmer is significantly different than 
simmer on an electric unit where the electric unit retains heat from 
the cooking top. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at p. 14) AHAM commented 
that a gas cooking top's ability to maintain simmer in the absence of 
retained heat is largely a function of grate to burner relationships, 
burner design, valve design, and pan position. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit 
A at p. 12) According to AHAM, this relationship is not accounted for 
in the electric cooking tops test because it does not need to be, but 
AHAM believes it does need to be addressed in a test applicable to gas 
cooking tops. (AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at p. 12)
    Additionally, AHAM presented data indicating that the conventional 
cooking tops test procedure may not be reproducible across labs for 
both gas and electric cooking tops. AHAM submitted data showing that 
repeated attempts by experienced technicians to follow the test 
procedure led to inaccurate results. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 2, Exhibit A 
at pp. 22, 33) AHAM responded to stakeholder comments that AHAM's data 
is faulty because DOE's most recent testing on the repeatability of 
test results for electric cooking tops, summarized in Table I of this 
rule and in Table III.1 of the August 2019 NOPR, demonstrated the test 
procedure is not highly variable. AHAM clarified that, while their 
testing results are similar to DOE's with regard to repeatability, DOE 
has not evaluated reproducibility like AHAM has, and those lab-to-lab 
results form a significant basis upon which AHAM relies in its 
petition. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 3) AHAM asserted that the results of its 
round-robin testing showed high levels of lab-to-lab variation, 
demonstrating that the test procedure is not reproducible. (AHAM, No. 
35 at p. 3, Exhibit A at pp. 22, 33) AHAM argued that test procedures 
must be reproducible, at different laboratories and with different 
technicians, in order to be considered reasonably designed under 42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA. Id. AHAM stated their appreciation that DOE 
is conducting additional testing to evaluate both repeatability and 
reproducibility and urged DOE to conduct this testing in different 
laboratories, not just with different technicians, in order to truly 
test reproducibility. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4)
    AHAM additionally commented that the consensus standard working 
group in Europe has also indicated that, after gaining experience with 
its electric test--upon which DOE had based its electric cooking top 
test and gas cooking top test--significant variation is being seen in 
the simmer portion of the test. AHAM believes this further highlights 
the need for DOE to withdraw its cooking top test procedure until a 
more accurate test procedure is available and has been vetted through 
round-robin testing in the United States. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4)
    With regard to test burden, AHAM presented data that the existing 
test procedure is unduly burdensome to conduct as written, as it takes 
about 20 hours for an average four burner cooking top and the test 
procedure requires testing of every single burner

[[Page 50762]]

individually. (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 3) AHAM commented that DOE's testing 
found even longer test times, with DOE stating in the August 2019 NOPR 
that in ``total, a cooking top with four surface units requires around 
36 work hours to complete.'' (AHAM, No. 35 at p. 4) Additionally, at 
the public meeting for the conventional cooking tops test procedure 
held on October 9, 2019, AHAM stated that manufacturers would have to 
make a significant investment to meet the stringent ambient conditions 
specified in the test procedure. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
38 at pp. 52-53) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A notation in the form of ``AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 38 at pp. 52-53'' identifies a written comment: (1) Made by 
AHAM; (2) stated during the Public Meeting whose transcript is 
available as document number 38 that is filed in the docket for this 
rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004) and available for 
review at http://www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on pages 
52 through 53 of the transcript, document number 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), and GE Appliances (GEA) 
submitted comments in support of AHAM's positions. Whirlpool commented 
that the test procedure has so much variation that the reported energy 
performance values are not accurate or meaningful for consumers to use. 
(Whirlpool, No. 36 at p. 2) Whirlpool further asserted that the test 
procedure is very time-consuming and labor-intensive, as it must be 
monitored almost continuously with frequent manual adjustments made by 
the technician. (Whirlpool, No. 36 at p. 2) At the conventional cooking 
tops public meeting held on October 9, 2019, Whirlpool stated that 
testing to the requirements of the test procedure would be a 
substantial laboratory requirement, the cost of which has not been 
captured. Whirlpool estimated it would have to build approximately six 
new laboratories to enable it to conduct testing of its products. 
(Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38 at pp. 34-35) GEA echoed 
AHAM's comments that its members were careful when conducting the 
previous testing in accordance with the DOE test procedure, and that it 
is the test procedure itself and unaccounted for differences in various 
cooking technologies that contribute to the higher-than-expected 
variation in test results. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2) GEA reiterated its 
prior comments that the test procedure is unduly burdensome, in terms 
of the required testing time and resources necessary to complete such 
testing. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2) Additionally, GEA commented that future 
changes to the U.S. safety standards for electric cooking tops may 
adversely impact results from the cooking tops test procedure. GEA 
stated that future improvements in the relevant safety standards, if 
any, could also negatively impact the repeatability, reproducibility, 
and representativeness of the cooktop test procedure. (GEA, No. 31 at 
p. 2)
    In response to the August 2019 NOPR, DOE also received a joint 
submission from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas 
and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE) (California 
Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs)) and a joint submission from the 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), California Energy 
Commission and Natural Resources Defense Council (Joint Advocates). 
These stakeholders were opposed to the withdrawal of the conventional 
cooking tops test procedure. The CA IOUs commented that DOE's proposed 
withdrawal is beyond its statutory authority, arguing that EPCA only 
authorizes DOE to prescribe or amend test procedures, not withdraw them 
without replacement. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 1) The CA IOUs and the 
Joint Advocates similarly commented that DOE's proposal to withdraw the 
cooking tops test procedure is not supported by DOE's own investigation 
and testing. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) 
Both stakeholders noted that, in light of AHAM's 2018 petition, DOE re-
verified its water-based test procedure efficacy and found that the 
coefficient of variation for each surface unit's energy consumption did 
not exceed two percent of all units in the sample, which suggest the 
test procedure is repeatable for electric cooking tops. (CA IOUs, No. 
34 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates 
commented that even if there are outstanding questions around 
repeatability or reproducibility, these have no bearing on whether the 
test procedure is representative or unduly burdensome to conduct. The 
Joint Advocates, with similar comments from the CA IOUs, stated that 
DOE provides no evidence in the August 2019 NOPR that the test 
procedure is not representative of consumer use nor any evidence that 
the test itself is unduly burdensome. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2; 
CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates commented that withdrawing 
the test procedure prior to additional testing and publication of the 
results for stakeholder comment would be unwarranted and harmful to 
consumers. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 2) Further, the Joint 
Advocates stated that withdrawing the test procedure would be 
unwarranted because, in the absence of performance standards for 
cooking tops, manufacturers are not currently required to use the test 
procedure. Id. Additionally, the Joint Advocates stated they were 
unaware of any manufacturers that make efficiency representations for 
cooking tops. Id.
    The CA IOUs similarly requested that DOE consider conducting 
additional round-robin testing in an effort to further understand the 
overall variation in results and to further explore the reasons for the 
discrepancies with results achieved via DOE testing and other industry 
testing, particularly for gas cooking tops in light of AHAM's limited 
sample size for these products. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 2) The CA IOUs 
commented that, at the NOPR public meeting, AHAM suggested that ambient 
conditions impact the repeatability of the test procedure. In response, 
the CA IOUs provided in their written comments that ambient conditions 
are specified in the test procedure, and thus in a controlled 
laboratory atmosphere, unexpected changes in a controlled conditioned 
space should not be the cause for significant changes in the 
performance results from one test run to another. Therefore, the CA 
IOUs suggested that the true causes for discrepancies in the test 
results remain mostly unknown. In the absence of additional energy 
performance data and analysis to further understand why this test 
procedure may not be repeatable or reproducible for both gas and 
electric cooking tops, the CA IOUs deemed the withdrawal of the test 
procedure to be premature. Id.
    The CA IOUs further commented that they continue to support the 
water-based test procedure, believing it to be a straightforward 
representation of residential cooking top use, regardless of fuel type 
(gas or electric). They noted that the water heating method has been 
widely adopted in Europe and elsewhere, and they asserted that the 20-
minute simmer portion of the test is representative of an ``average 
household cooking duration.'' The CA IOUs are not aware of any vetted 
operational studies or reports suggesting gas cooking tops are not used 
for heating and/or maintaining a liquid (i.e., water) at a specified 
temperature. Id.
    Recognizing that any additional performance testing can be 
burdensome, the CA IOUs commented that once manufacturers and third-
party test laboratories acquire all required testing materials to 
accurately and effectively run the test procedure, the burden is far 
less considerable. (CA IOUs, No. 34 at p. 3) Lastly, the Joint 
Advocates argued that DOE's statement in the August 2019

[[Page 50763]]

NOPR that ``the cooking products test procedure, as conducted by 
testing laboratories that may not be familiar with its provisions, does 
not provide information that is potentially beneficial to consumers,'' 
does not support DOE's proposal to withdraw the test procedure. The 
Joint Advocates commented that this statement is true for any test 
procedure, as any laboratory conducting testing using any test 
procedure must be sufficiently familiar with the procedure to 
accurately conduct the test. (Joint Advocates, No. 37 at p. 3)
    As previously stated, test procedures promulgated by DOE must be 
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure the energy 
efficiency of a conventional cooking top during a representative 
average use cycle or period of use as determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(3)) The Federal test procedure must also not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct. Id. Stakeholders have raised valid concerns 
relating to the representativeness of the conventional cooking tops 
test procedure. The test data submitted by AHAM is inconsistent with 
DOE's own published testing data, to date. DOE's test data for electric 
cooktops shows small variations, though those tests were conducted 
within one lab. AHAM's lab-to-lab test results showed high levels of 
variation for gas and electric cooktops.\7\ This inconsistency 
indicates that the test may not be reproducible across labs. DOE has 
not identified the cause of this variation, as DOE's published testing 
to date has involved only single lab testing of electric cooking tops 
and no actual tests of gas cooktops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See AHAM, No. 35 at Exhibit A at Table 1, p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reproducible test procedures are necessary to ensure that testing 
results are consistent from test-to-test and lab-to-lab, especially for 
compliance testing. Variability in test results indicates the test 
procedure is not representative of consumer use, as required by 42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA. To ensure that the cooking tops test 
procedure measures energy use during a representative average use cycle 
or period of use, DOE concludes that further investigation is 
necessary. Before DOE can determine any appropriate test procedure for 
use in developing a subsequent energy conservation standard, DOE must 
conduct additional testing and gather additional data, including 
testing at additional laboratories, and publish such data for public 
comment.
    Because DOE determines the cooking tops test procedure is not 
representative, the testing cost and testing time associated with the 
test procedure are unnecessarily burdensome and cannot be justified. 
There is currently no performance-based energy conservation standard 
for conventional cooking tops, and so a test procedure is required only 
if manufacturers are making representations of energy efficiency. DOE 
finds there is no benefit to either consumers or manufacturers to leave 
in place a test procedure for which there are substantial questions as 
to the test's accuracy and reliability for making efficiency 
representations. Moreover, from a market perspective, there is harm in 
requiring manufacturers to incur the cost of a test procedure for 
communicating energy efficiency to consumers that yields inaccurate 
results.
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) of EPCA, DOE has the authority to 
withdraw a test procedure that is not representative of an average use 
cycle or period of use and is unduly burdensome to conduct. Under this 
authority, DOE is able to withdraw test procedure rules that it 
discovers are faulty. DOE similarly invoked this authority when it 
repealed the conventional oven test procedure in the December 2016 TP 
Final Rule because it did not accurately represent consumer use. 
Notably, DOE received no objection to its authority to repeal the oven 
test procedure in that proceeding. 81 FR 91418, 91423-91424. Moreover, 
the APA provides any party with the right to petition for, among other 
things, the repeal of a rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(e). AHAM has sought repeal 
of the cooking tops test procedure by submitting a petition under this 
APA authority. DOE is following the process required by the APA, by 
undertaking this rulemaking proceeding to repeal the cooking tops test 
procedure. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm 
Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983).
    AHAM submitted test results conducted by skilled technicians that 
is inconsistent with DOE's own testing results to date regarding the 
test procedure for conventional cooking tops. Because of the 
inconsistency, which indicates the test procedure is not reproducible, 
DOE determines that the conventional cooking tops test procedure does 
not accurately represent consumer use and is unduly burdensome. DOE 
therefore withdraws the conventional cooking tops test procedure in 
this final rule. A design standard for conventional cooking tops still 
remains, which does not require a test procedure. DOE will continue 
collecting testing data for conventional cooking tops to determine any 
appropriate test procedure for use in developing any subsequent energy 
conservation standard.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    This final rule does not constitute a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' The 
E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent 
and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both 
public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated that it is essential to 
manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private 
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
    Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' E.O. 13777 required 
the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory 
Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO oversees the implementation of 
regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies 
effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable 
law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory 
task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to 
make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, 
replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with 
applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must 
attempt to identify regulations that:
    (i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
    (ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
    (iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
    (iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
    (v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality 
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those 
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or 
methods that are not publicly available or that are

[[Page 50764]]

insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
    (vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other 
Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or 
substantially modified.
    DOE concludes that this rulemaking is consistent with the 
directives set forth in these executive orders.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, and a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 
adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 
68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the 
Office of the General Counsel's website (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed the withdrawal of the cooking tops test procedure 
under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 
procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003.
    DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business 
size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small 
businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS). The SBA considers a business entity to 
be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less 
than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 
2017 NAICS code for cooking tops is 335210, small electrical appliance 
manufacturing. The threshold number for NAICS code 335210 is 1,500 
employees. This employee threshold includes all employees in a 
business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
    DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers 
of products covered by this rulemaking. DOE primarily used the 
Compliance Certification Database in DOE's Compliance Certification 
Management System for cooking products to create a list of companies 
that sell cooking tops. DOE identified a total of 24 distinct companies 
that sell cooking tops in the United States.
    DOE reviewed these companies to determine whether the entities met 
the SBA's definition of ``small business'' and screened out any 
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not 
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and 
operated. Based on this review, DOE identified 12 domestic 
manufacturers of cooking tops that are potential small businesses.
    This final rule withdraws the conventional cooking tops test 
procedure for manufacturers. This does not increase manufacturer's 
testing burden or add any costs to any manufacturers, small or large. 
For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that this final rule 
does not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities,'' and the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

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

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that 
will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation 
standards for cooking products. DOE has determined that this rule falls 
into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 
Specifically, this rule revokes the existing test procedures. The 
existing test procedures are not used for determining compliance with 
an energy conservation standard and as such, their revocation does not 
affect the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, 
therefore, does not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this 
rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 
1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or 
amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of 
that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an 
environmental impact statement is required.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt state law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this 
final rule and has determined that it does not have a substantial 
direct effect on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes federal preemption of state regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

[[Page 50765]]

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

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

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

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this final rule does not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

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

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE maintains the incorporation of reference of 
the following test standards: (1) IEC 62301, Household electrical 
appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Publication 62301 (First 
Edition 2005-06), section 5; and (2) IEC 62301 Household electrical 
appliances--Measurement of standby power, (Edition 2.0 2011-01), 
sections 4 and 5. These standards include test conditions and testing 
procedures for measuring the average standby mode and average off mode 
power consumption of microwaves and were previously incorporated by 
reference in appendix I.
    Copies of IEC 62301 (First Edition) and IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 
can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 
43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to 
http://webstore.ansi.org.
    In this final rule, DOE also removes the test standard published by 
the

[[Page 50766]]

European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, CENELEC, EN 
60350-2:2013, ``Household electric cooking appliances Part 2: Hobs--
Methods for measuring performance,'' (June 3, 2013), IBR approved for 
appendix I to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to congress a report 
regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date 
set forth at the outset of this rulemaking. The report will state that 
it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 801(2).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 17, 
2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

     Signed in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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

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


Sec.  430.3   [Amended]

0
2. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (l); and
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (m) through (v) as paragraphs (l) through 
(u).

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


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

* * * * *
    (i) Cooking products. Determine the standby power for microwave 
ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of a combined cooking 
product, according to section 3.2.1 of appendix I to this subpart. 
Round standby power to the nearest 0.1 watt.
* * * * *

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

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

1. Definitions

    The following definitions apply to the test procedures in this 
appendix, including the test procedures incorporated by reference:
    1.1 Active mode means a mode in which the product is connected 
to a mains power source, has been activated, and is performing the 
main function of producing heat by means of a gas flame, electric 
resistance heating, electric inductive heating, or microwave energy.
    1.2 Built-in means the product is enclosed in surrounding 
cabinetry, walls, or other similar structures on at least three 
sides, and can be supported by surrounding cabinetry or the floor.
    1.3 Combined cooking product means a household cooking appliance 
that combines a cooking product with other appliance functionality, 
which may or may not include another cooking product. Combined 
cooking products include the following products: Conventional range, 
microwave/conventional cooking top, microwave/conventional oven, and 
microwave/conventional range.
    1.4 Drop-in means the product is supported by horizontal surface 
cabinetry.
    1.5 IEC 62301 (First Edition) means the test standard published 
by the International Electrotechnical Commission, titled ``Household 
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Publication 
62301 (First Edition 2005-06) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3).
    1.6 IEC 62301 (Second Edition) means the test standard published 
by the International Electrotechnical Commission, titled ``Household 
electrical appliances--Measurement of standby power,'' Publication 
62301 (Edition 2.0 2011-01) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3).
    1.7 Normal non-operating temperature means a temperature of all 
areas of an appliance to be tested that is within 5 [deg]F (2.8 
[deg]C) of the temperature that the identical areas of the same 
basic model of the appliance would attain if it remained in the test 
room for 24 hours while not operating with all oven doors closed.
    1.8 Off mode means any mode in which a cooking product is 
connected to a mains power source and is not providing any active 
mode or standby function, and where the mode may persist for an 
indefinite time. An indicator that only shows the user that the 
product is in the off position is included within the classification 
of an off mode.
    1.9 Standby mode means any mode in which a cooking product is 
connected to a mains power source and offers one or more of the 
following user-oriented or protective functions which may persist 
for an indefinite time:
    (1) Facilitation of the activation of other modes (including 
activation or deactivation of active mode) by remote switch 
(including remote control), internal sensor, or timer;
    (2) Provision of continuous functions, including information or 
status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions. A 
timer is a continuous clock function (which may or may not be 
associated with a display) that allows for regularly scheduled tasks 
and that operates on a continuous basis.

2. Test Conditions

    2.1 Installation. Install a drop-in or built-in cooking product 
in a test enclosure in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. 
If the manufacturer's instructions specify that the cooking product 
may be used in multiple installation conditions, install the 
appliance according to the built-in configuration. Completely 
assemble the product with all handles, knobs, guards, and similar 
components mounted in place. Position any electric resistance 
heaters and baffles in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions.
    2.1.1 Microwave ovens, excluding any microwave oven component of 
a combined cooking product. Install the microwave oven in accordance 
with the manufacturer's instructions and connect to an electrical 
supply circuit with voltage as specified in section 2.2.1 of this 
appendix. Install the microwave oven also in accordance with Section 
5, Paragraph 5.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), disregarding the provisions regarding 
batteries and the determination, classification, and testing of 
relevant modes. A watt meter shall be installed in the circuit and 
shall be as described in section 2.6.1.1 of this appendix.
    2.2 Energy supply.
    2.2.1 Electrical supply.
    2.2.1.1 Voltage. For microwave oven testing, maintain the 
electrical supply to the unit at 240/120 volts 1 
percent. Maintain the electrical supply frequency for all products 
at 60 hertz 1 percent.

[[Page 50767]]

    2.3 Air circulation. Maintain air circulation in the room 
sufficient to secure a reasonably uniform temperature distribution, 
but do not cause a direct draft on the unit under test.
    2.4 Ambient room test conditions.
    2.4.1 Standby mode and off mode ambient temperature. For standby 
mode and off mode testing, maintain room ambient air temperature 
conditions as specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.5 Normal non-operating temperature. All areas of the appliance 
to be tested must attain the normal non-operating temperature, as 
defined in section 1.7 of this appendix, before any testing begins. 
Measure the applicable normal non-operating temperature using the 
equipment specified in sections 2.6.2.1 of this appendix.
    2.6 Instrumentation. Perform all test measurements using the 
following instruments, as appropriate:
    2.6.1 Electrical Measurements.
    2.6.1.1 Standby mode and off mode watt meter. The watt meter 
used to measure standby mode and off mode power must meet the 
requirements specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). For 
microwave oven standby mode and off mode testing, if the power 
measuring instrument used for testing is unable to measure and 
record the crest factor, power factor, or maximum current ratio 
during the test measurement period, measure the crest factor, power 
factor, and maximum current ratio immediately before and after the 
test measurement period to determine whether these characteristics 
meet the requirements specified in Section 4, Paragraph 4.4 of IEC 
62301 (Second Edition).
    2.6.2 Temperature measurement equipment.
    2.6.2.1 Room temperature indicating system. For the test of 
microwave ovens, the room temperature indicating system must have an 
error no greater than 1 [deg]F (0.6 [deg]C) 
over the range 65[deg] to 90 [deg]F (18 [deg]C to 32 [deg]C).

3. Test Methods and Measurements

    3.1. Test methods.
    3.1.1 Microwave oven.
    3.1.1.1 Microwave oven test standby mode and off mode power 
except for any microwave oven component of a combined cooking 
product. Establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2, 
Test Conditions, of this appendix. For microwave ovens that drop 
from a higher power state to a lower power state as discussed in 
Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), allow sufficient time 
for the microwave oven to reach the lower power state before 
proceeding with the test measurement. Follow the test procedure as 
specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second 
Edition). For units in which power varies as a function of displayed 
time in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 and use the average 
power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 
62301 (First Edition), but with a single test period of 10 minutes 
+0/-2 sec after an additional stabilization period until the clock 
time reaches 3:33. If a microwave oven is capable of operation in 
either standby mode or off mode, as defined in sections 1.9 and 1.8 
of this appendix, respectively, or both, test the microwave oven in 
each mode in which it can operate.
    3.2 Test measurements.
    3.2.1 Microwave oven standby mode and off mode power except for 
any microwave oven component of a combined cooking product. Make 
measurements as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). If 
the microwave oven is capable of operating in standby mode, as 
defined in section 1.9 of this appendix, measure the average standby 
mode power of the microwave oven, PSB, in watts as specified in 
section 3.1.1.1 of this appendix. If the microwave oven is capable 
of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.8 of this 
appendix, measure the average off mode power of the microwave oven, 
POM, as specified in section 3.1.1.1.
    3.3 Recorded values.
    3.3.1 For microwave ovens except for any microwave oven 
component of a combined cooking product, record the average standby 
mode power, PSB, for the microwave oven standby mode, as determined 
in section 3.2.1 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of 
operating in standby mode. Record the average off mode power, POM, 
for the microwave oven off mode power test, as determined in section 
3.2.1 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of operating in 
off mode.

[FR Doc. 2020-16102 Filed 8-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P