Source: https://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013-0001
Timestamp: 2016-07-24 22:20:42
Document Index: 273066467

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1021', 'art 1021', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'art 430']

Skip Navigation HomeHelpResourcesContact Us Advanced Search Start of Main Content 2013-01-30 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Conventional Cooking Products With Induction Heating Technology; Notice of proposed rulemaking; public meeting. This Proposed Rule document was issued by the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office (EERE) For related information, Open Docket Folder Show agency attachment(s) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013]
ActionNotice of proposed rulemaking; public meeting.
SummaryThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to revise its test procedures for cooking products established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Test procedures for cooking products can be found at DOE's regulations for Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products, subpart B, appendix I (Appendix I). The proposed amendments to Appendix I would amend the test method for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking tops and ranges. Appendix I does not currently include any test methods applicable to induction cooking products. The proposed amendments would incorporate induction cooking tops by amending the definition of “conventional cooking top” to include induction heating technology. Furthermore, the proposed amendments would require for cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with induction technology as well as with gas burners and electric resistance heating elements. Specifically, the amendments would replace the solid aluminum test blocks currently specified in the test procedure for cooking tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: an aluminum body and a stainless steel base. Appendix I currently specifies the test block size for electric cooking tops based on the surface unit diameter; however, there are no provisions for determining which test block size to use for non-circular electric surface units. The proposed amendments include a clarification that the test block size be determined using the smallest dimension of the electric surface unit.
DatesDOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than April 15, 2013. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details.
AddressesThe public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. Persons can attend the public meeting via Webinar. For more information, refer to the Public Participation section near the end of this notice.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR+PSrpp=50;so=DESC;sb=postedDate;po=0;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments through regulations.gov. For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. For Further Information ContactMs. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email: Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov. Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 202-287-6307. Email: Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov.
VI. Approval of the Office of the SecretaryI. Authority and BackgroundTitle III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.;“EPCA” or, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” These include residential kitchen ranges and ovens, the subject of today's notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use (1) as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) for making representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking ProcessUnder 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 provides in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments. . (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))B. Test Procedures for Cooking ProductsDOE's test procedures for conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens are codified at appendix I to subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Appendix I).
DOE established the test procedures in a final rule published in theFederal Registeron May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120-28. These test procedures did not cover induction cooking products because they were, at the time, relatively new products, and represented a small share of the market. 43 FR 20117. 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 did not address induction cooking, but included: (1) A reduction in the annual useful cooking energy; (2) a reduction in the number of self-cleaning 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 forhousehold and similar purposes,” and Amendment 2-1993 for the testing of microwave ovens. Id. The test procedures for conventional 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. These provisions for conventional cooking products are not currently used for compliance with any energy conservation standards because the present standards only regulate design requirements, nor is there an EnergyGuide (1)
DOE recently conducted a separate rulemaking to address standby and off mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode testing provisions, for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and conventional cooking products. DOE published a final rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, hereafter referred to as the October 2012 Final Rule), adopting standby and off mode provisions that satisfy the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, which require DOE to include measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption in its test procedures for residential products, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed RulemakingIn today's NOPR, DOE proposes amendments to the test procedures in Appendix I that would allow for testing the active mode energy consumption of induction cooking products; i.e., conventional cooking tops and ranges equipped with induction heating technology for one or more surface units on the cooking top. (2)
In today's NOPR, DOE further proposes methodology to determine the required test block size for all electric surface units, including those that are non-circular.III. DiscussionA. Products Covered by This Test Procedure RulemakingAs discussed in section I of this NOPR, the test procedures currently in Appendix I do not apply to induction cooking products. Induction products were not considered in the initial final rule to establish these test procedures because of their relatively small market share in 1978. 43 FR 20117. Today's proposal would amend the DOE test procedures for conventional cooking tops and ranges to cover induction cooking products.
Although induction cooking products started as a niche product with a very small market share, a recent survey of major retailers indicates that roughly 10 percent of all cooking tops currently available on the market now use induction heating. Additionally, the three manufacturers comprising more than 84 percent of the market for conventional ranges (3)
As discussed further in section III.C of this NOPR, the amendments proposed in today's notice would apply to conventional cooking products in general, including induction cooking products. DOE currently defines “cooking products” as the major household cooking appliances that cook or heat food by gas, electricity, or microwave energy, and include conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens, microwave/conventional ranges and other cooking products. 10 CFR 430.2. A “conventional cooking top” contains one or more surface units which include either a gas flame or electric resistance heating. Id. A “conventional range” consists of a conventional cooking top and one or more conventional ovens. Id. The current definition of “conventional cooking top,” and by extension, the definition of “conventional range,” does not refer to heating by means of electricity other than electric resistance heating, which would preclude induction heating. Because of the increased availability of induction cooking products discussed in the beginning of this section, DOE is proposing to amend the definition of “conventional cooking top” to a household cooking appliance within a class of kitchen ranges and ovens, each of which consists of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating. The definition of “conventional range” would remain unchanged, butwould newly cover products with a conventional oven and a cooking top that heats by means of induction technology.
DOE requests comment on the proposed amended definitions of conventional cooking top and active mode.B. Effective DateThe amended test procedure would become effective 30 days after any test procedure final rule is published in theFederal Register. The amendments would require that as of 180 days after publication of any test procedure final rule, representations related to the energy consumption of conventional cooking products, including induction cooking products, must be based upon results generated under the applicable provisions of the amended test procedures in Appendix I. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))C. Active Mode Test ProcedureThe current test procedure for conventional cooking tops involves heating an aluminum test block on each surface unit of the cooking top. Two aluminum test blocks, of different diameters, are specified for testing different surface units. The small test block (6.25 inches diameter) is used for electric surface units with diameters of 7 inches or less, and the large test block (9 inches diameter) is used for electric surface units with diameters greater than 7 inches and all gas surface units. Once the initial test and ambient conditions are met, the surface unit is turned to its maximum energy input setting. After the test block temperature increases by 144 °F, the surface unit is immediately reduced to 25 percent ± 5 percent of the maximum energy input rate for 15 ± 0.1 minutes. The efficiency of the surface unit is calculated as the ratio of the energy transferred to the test block (based on its temperature rise) to the energy consumed by the cooking top during the test. The cooking top cooking efficiency is calculated as the average efficiency of the surface units on the cooking top.
Test block classificationTest block composition (component and material) Aluminum One solid aluminum alloy 6061 block.
DOE also conducted tests to heat water in cooking vessels to compare test repeatability with the metal block heating tests. Heating water would allow for a test procedure that is more representative of actual consumer usage (in terms of the cooking food load), but would also introduce additional sourcesof variability. Section III.C.5 below describes the water-heating tests.1. Aluminum Test BlocksDOE conducted tests using the current aluminum test blocks to establish a baseline for comparison to the candidate substitute test blocks. Appendix I provides specifications for the large and small aluminum test blocks as shown in Table III.2.
Test block sizeBlock diameter(inches (in))Block height(in)Block weight(pounds (lb))Specific heat(British thermal units(Btu)/(lb-°F))Heat capacity(Btu/°F)
Small6.25 ± 0.052.88.5 ± 0.10.231.96
Large9 ± 0.05319 ± 0.10.234.37
Test block sizeCooking topHeating technologySurface unitMeanefficiency%Standard deviation%95-percent confidence interval(±)%
LargeAElectric Coil171.032.222.76
BElectric Smooth154.220.640.80
265.191.061.32
CGas1 a b 18.96 a 1.01 a 1.60
SmallAElectric Coil265.042.733.39
BElectric Smooth361.700.730.90
Although the meter readings affected the magnitude of the gas surface unit efficiency results, DOE believes the results still provide meaningful information for assessing the candidate test blocks. The purpose of the testing was to compare the testing results, in terms of repeatability and overall efficiency, across the different test block types, and not necessarily to compare efficiencies from unit-to-unit. DOE observed the same low efficiencies and high gas consumptions in the tests on the substitute test blocks described in sections III.C.2 though III.C.5 of this NOPR, so the results for the gas cooking top can still be compared between the different test blocks. The high meter readings do not allow a consistent comparison of the gas surface unit efficiency to the electric surface units, but gas surface units typically have efficiencies in a lower range compared to electric surface units.2. Carbon Steel Test BlocksDOE conducted tests using solid carbon steel test blocks with the specifications shown in Table III.4, matching the aluminum test blocks in diameter and heat capacity.
Test block sizeBlock diameter(in)Block height(in)Block weight(lb)Specific heat(Btu/lb-°F)Heat capacity(Btu/°F)
Small6.251.9316.850.1161.96
Large92.0937.670.1164.37
Test block sizeCooking topHeating technologySurface unitMeanefficiency%Standard deviation%95-percent confidence interval(±) %
LargeAElectric Coil169.791.591.97
BElectric Smooth1253.1963.241.282.031.602.52
CGas1 a b 18.67 a 0.92 a 1.46
DInduction163.922.302.86
EInduction167.780.680.84
FInduction167.930.560.70
SmallAElectric Coil264.610.540.67
BElectric Smooth360.441.551.93
DInduction2364.1060.891.042.701.293.35
EInduction262.861.081.34
Based on these test results, DOE concludes that the carbon steel test blocks are a reasonable substitute for the aluminum test blocks. However, the heating that occurs using a solid block of ferromagnetic material may not be representative of how induction cooking tops actually operate in real-world situations. Typically, induction cooking tops only induce current in a thin layer of ferromagnetic material in the cooking vessel, which then heats up the food load. For this reason, DOE conducted further investigations with hybrid test blocks, as discussed below.3. Carbon Steel Hybrid Test BlocksDOE conducted additional tests using hybrid test blocks to more closely reflect the real-world operation of induction cooking tops. DOE fabricated carbon steel hybrid test blocks using a 0.25 inch base of carbon steel 1018 with a body of aluminum 6061. Typical cookware is slightly thinner gauge than this base, but DOE chose the base to preclude against warping while the block heats up. Additionally, DOE observed that the portable induction unit is packaged with a steel plate adaptor of roughly the same thickness as DOE's carbon steel base to allow for cooking with non-ferromagnetic cookware.
Small Carbon Steel Base6.250.252.060.1160.24
Small Aluminum Body6.252.57.460.231.72
Small Total6.252.759.520.211.96
Large Carbon Steel Base90.254.270.1160.5
Large Aluminum Body92.7216.850.233.87
Large Total92.9721.120.214.37
Test block sizeCooking topHeating technologySurface unitMeanefficiency%Standard deviation %95-Percent confidence interval(±) %
LargeAElectric Coil167.781.872.32
BElectric Smooth152.030.780.97
263.590.640.79
CGas1 a b 18.64 a 0.59 a 0.93
DInduction165.942.683.32
EInduction168.171.061.31
FInduction160.103.213.99
AElectric Coil264.441.872.32
BElectric Smooth359.711.061.32
SmallDInduction2363.2662.880.790.650.980.81
EInduction263.271.191.48
In addition, after conducting multiple tests using the carbon steel hybrid test blocks, DOE observed rust forming on the carbon steel base. DOE was concerned that the rust could lead to inconsistent heat transfer between the carbon steel base and the aluminum body based on the amount of rust present, which would affect thermal contact. (4)
Thus, DOE conducted another set of tests using hybrid test blocks with stainless steel 430 bases that would be more resistant to rust formation.4.Stainless Steel Hybrid Test BlocksThe specific heats and densities of carbon steel and stainless steel are similar, so bases with the same dimensions have similar heat capacities. Therefore, the same aluminum test bodies were used for both sets of hybrid block tests. Table III.8 describes the component and overall properties of the stainless steel hybrid test blocks.
Small Stainless Steel Base6.250.252.150.110.24
Small Total6.252.759.610.21.96
Large Stainless Steel Base90.254.280.110.47
Large Total92.9721.130.214.34
DOE tested the stainless steel hybrid test blocks on all six cooking tops in the test sample. Table III.9 summarizes the test results for surface units on these products using the stainless steel hybrid test blocks. As described in section III.C.1, DOE did not test multiple surface units with equal diameters on the same cooking top, and the surfaceunit numbers included in the table are used to differentiate between surface units on the same cooking top.
LargeAElectric Coil164.520.871.08
BElectric Smooth149.190.460.57
259.600.460.57
CGas1 a b 16.27 a 1.16 a 1.85
DInduction164.191.281.59
EInduction164.320.911.13
FInduction155.571.471.83
SmallAElectric Coil262.872.362.93
BElectric Smooth357.750.871.08
DInduction262.831.471.83
360.290.680.84
EInduction261.811.191.47
Test block typeAverage efficiency%Average standarddeviation%Average 95-percentconfidence interval(±) %
Aluminum a 56.02 a 1.40 a 1.80
Carbon Steel59.781.361.71
Carbon Steel Hybrid59.151.361.71
Stainless Steel Hybrid56.601.101.40
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the use of stainless steel hybrid test blocks for testing all cooking tops that would be covered by the proposed definition of conventional cooking tops in an amended cooking products test procedure, including the potential burden associated with the requirement for such new test equipment.5.Water-Heating TestsTo investigate additional test methods that may be representative of actual consumer usage, DOE conducted a test series based on water heating in place of metal block heating. Water provides a heating medium that is more representative of actual consumer use, because many foods cooked on a cooking top have a relatively high liquid content. However, water heating introduces additional sources of variability not present for metal block heating—the temperature distribution in the water is not always uniform, the properties of the water can vary from lab to lab, and the ambient conditions and cookware surface effects can have a large impact on the water boiling and evaporating throughout the test.
The Draft IEC 60350 Amendment specifies the quantity of water to be heated in a standardized cooking vessel whose size is based on the diameter of the surface unit. For this analysis, DOE chose the two IEC-specified cooking vessels with diameters closest to the diameters specified for the aluminum test blocks (6.25 inches and 9 inches). The cookware consists of a thin-walled stainless steel cylinder attached to a flatstainless steel 430 base plate. The test method also specifies an aluminum lid with vent holes and a small center hole to fix the thermocouple in the center of the pot. Table III.11 describes the IEC cookware and the quantity of water used for DOE's testing. (5)
Cookware sizeCookwarediameter(in)Base thickness(in)Total height(in)Lid diameter(in)Water weight(lbs)
Small5.910.244.926.52.27
Large9.450.244.9210.435.95
Cookware sizeCookingtopHeating technologySurfaceunitMeanefficiency%Standarddeviation%95-percentconfidenceinterval (±)%
LargeAElectric Coil179.811.662.06
BElectricSmooth1261.8175.882.833.113.523.86
CGas1 a b 26.29 a 2.83 a 4.51
DInduction181.310.280.34
EInduction179.210.650.81
FInduction174.172.553.17
SmallAElectric Coil276.991.652.05
BElectricSmooth368.094.125.11
DInduction2379.3580.670.371.710.462.13
EInduction275.992.032.52
Even after considering differences in the final water temperature and the amount of water boiled or evaporated during the test, the variability for the water-heating tests was still greater than for the metal block tests. Table III.13 compares the standard deviations for each surface unit tested with both the water-heating and metal block-heating tests.
Test block sizeCookingtopHeating technologySurfaceunitStandard deviationAluminum%Carbonsteel%Carbonsteelhybrid%Stainlesssteelhybrid%Water-heatingefficiency%
LargeAElectric Coil12.221.591.870.871.66
BElectricSmooth120.641.061.282.030.780.640.460.462.833.11
CGas1 a 1.01 a 0.92 a 0.59 a 1.16 a 2.83
DInduction1N/A2.302.681.280.28
EInduction1N/A0.681.060.910.65
FInduction1N/A0.563.211.472.55
SmallAElectric Coil22.730.541.872.361.65
BElectric Smooth30.731.551.060.874.12
DInduction23N/AN/A1.042.700.790.651.470.680.371.71
EInduction2N/A1.081.191.192.03
Average1.401.361.361.101.98
DOE acknowledges that the water-heating tests may better reflect actual consumer behavior for cooking tops, and invites comment on whether water-heating tests should be considered in place of the metal block-heating tests. DOE also invites comment on the appropriate test method and conditions for water-heating tests, and the burden that would be incurred by more stringent specifications for ambient conditions.6. Non-Circular Electric Surface UnitsAs discussed in the beginning of section III.C, the small test block (6.25 inches diameter) is used for testing surface units with diameters of 7 inches or less, and the large test block (9 inches diameter) is used for electric surface units with diameters greater than 7 inches and all gas surface units. These provisions do not address how to determine the proper test block size for testing non-circular electric surface units.
DOE invites comments on whether using the smallest dimension of an electric surface unit is appropriate for determining the proper test block size.D. Standby and Off Mode Test ProcedureEISA 2007 amended EPCA to require that DOE amend its test procedures for all covered residential products, including cooking products, to include measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Accordingly, DOE recently conducted a separate rulemaking for conventional cooking products, dishwashers, and dehumidifiers to address standby and off mode energy consumption. (6)
DOE did not observe any standby mode or off mode operation or features unique to induction cooking tops that would warrant any changes to the standby mode and off mode test methods adopted by the October 2012 Final Rule for conventional cooking tops. DOE invites comment on whether induction cooking products require separate consideration for standby mode and off mode testing.E. Compliance With Other EPCA RequirementsEPCA requires that any new or amended test procedures for residential products must be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, orestimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
DOE concluded in the test procedure rulemaking for cooking products preceding today's NOPR, completed recently by the publication of the October 2012 Final Rule (see section I.B. for the rulemaking history for today's NOPR), that the amended test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct. In today's NOPR, DOE further concludes, given the small magnitude of the proposed changes (both in terms of the new test blocks and the time needed to take the test), that the newly proposed amended test procedure for cooking products would not be unreasonably burdensome to conduct.IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory ReviewA. Review Under Executive Order 12866The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB).B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility ActThe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 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 DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. The proposed rule would amend the test method for measuring the energy efficiency of conventional cooking tops and ranges to include test methods applicable to induction cooking products.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on either small or large manufacturers under the applicable provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The proposed rule would amend DOE's test procedures for cooking products by incorporating testing provisions to address active mode energy consumption for induction cooking products that will be used to develop and test compliance with any future energy conservation standards that may be established by DOE. The test procedure amendments involve the measurement of active mode energy consumption through the use of a different metal test block than is currently specified for conventional cooking tops. The proposed amendments would also apply for testing products currently considered conventional cooking tops. DOE estimates a cost for this new equipment of approximately $1000. Additionally, DOE estimates a cost of roughly $6,000 for manufacturers to test induction cooking products not currently covered by the test procedure. This estimate assumes $500 per test, as described in section III.E, with up to 12 total tests needed assuming three induction cooking top models with four individual tests per cooking top model. This cost is small compared to the average annual revenue of the two identified small businesses, which DOE estimates to be over $40 million. (7)
For these reasons, DOE tentatively concludes and certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared aregulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995Manufacturers of conventional cooking products 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 conventional 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, including conventional cooking products. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). 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 20 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.D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for conventional 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 amend the existing test procedures without affecting 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.E. Review Under Executive Order 13132Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 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 today's 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(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.F. Review Under Executive Order 12988Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995Title 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 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 electedofficers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's 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.H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999Section 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 rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.I. Review Under Executive Order 12630DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988) that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.K. Review Under Executive Order 13211Executive 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 promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any 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.
Today's regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of conventional cooking products is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.L.Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. The amendments proposed in today's NOPR do not authorize or require the use of any commercial standards.V. Public ParticipationA. Attendance at Public MeetingThe time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in theDATESandADDRESSESsections at the beginning of this document. If you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring laptops into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes.
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via Webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to Webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/57. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the Webinar software.B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For DistributionAny person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in theADDRESSESsection at the beginning of this NOPR. The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.C. Conduct of Public MeetingDOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings andprepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this NOPR. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.D. Submission of CommentsDOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in theDATESsection at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods described in theADDRESSESsection at the beginning of this NOPR. Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Test Procedures for Conventional Cooking Products, and provide docket number EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC71.
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).E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks CommentAlthough DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:1. Proposed Amended DefinitionsDOE requests comment on the proposed amended definitions of “conventional cooking top” and “active mode.” (See section III.A)2. Stainless Steel Hybrid Test BlocksDOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the use of stainless steel hybrid test blocks for testing all cooking tops that would be covered by the proposed definition of conventional cooking tops in an amended cooking products test procedure, including the potential burden associated with the requirement for such new test equipment. (See section III.C.4)3. Water-Heating TestDOE invites comment on whether water-heating tests should be considered in place of the metal block-heating tests, and on the appropriate water-heating test method and conditions. DOE also invites comment on the burden that would be incurred by more stringent specifications for ambient conditions. (See section III.C.5)4. Non-Circular Electric Surface UnitsDOE invites comments on whether using the smallest dimension of an electric surface unit is appropriate for determining the proper test block size. (See section III.C.6)5. Standby and Off ModeDOE requests comment on whether induction cooking products include any unique features or operational modes that would not be covered by the definitions and standby and off mode test procedures included in the October 2012 Final Rule. 77 FR 65942. (See section III.D)VI. Approval of the Office of the SecretaryThe Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:Part 430 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
* * * * *Appendix I—[Amended]
Appendix I to Subpart B of Part 430 Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Ranges Conventional Cooking Tops Conventional Ovens and Microwave OvensNoteAny representation related to active mode energy consumption of conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops (except for induction cooking products), and conventional ovens must be based upon results generated under this test procedure. Any representation made after April 29, 2013 related to standby mode and off mode energy consumption of conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops (except for induction cooking products), and conventional ovens, and any representation made after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER FINAL RULE PUBLICATION IN THEFEDERAL REGISTER] related to any energy consumption of induction cooking products, must be based upon results generated under this test procedure.
1. Definitions1.1 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, or circulating air internally or externally to the cooking product. Delay start mode is a one-off, user-initiated, short-duration function that is associated with an active mode.
* * * * *2. Test Conditions* * * * *
2.7 Test blocks for conventional oven and cooking top. The test blocks for conventional ovens and the test block bodies for conventional cooking tops shall be made of aluminum alloy No. 6061, with a specific heat of 0.23 Btu/lb- °F (0.96 kJ/[kg ÷ °C]) and with any temper that will give a coefficient of thermal conductivity of 1073.3 to 1189.1 Btu-in/h-ft 2- °F (154.8 to 171.5 W/[m ÷ °C]). Each test block and test block body shall have a hole at its top. The hole shall be 0.08 inch (2.03 mm) in diameter and 0.80 inch (20.3 mm) deep. Other means may be provided which will ensure that the thermocouple junction is installed at this same position and depth.
The test block bases for conventional cooking tops shall be made of stainless steel grade 430, with a specific heat of 0.11 Btu/lb- °F (0.46 kJ/[kg ÷ °C]) and with coefficient of thermal conductivity of 172.0 to 190.0 Btu-in/h-ft 2- °F (24.8 to 27.4 W/[m ÷ °C]).
The bottom of each test block and test block body, and top and bottom of each test block base, shall be flat to within 0.002 inch (0.051 mm) TIR (total indicator reading). Determine the actual weight of each test block, test block body, and test block basewith a scale with an accuracy as indicated in section 2.9.5 of this appendix.
* * * * *3. Test Methods and Measurements* * * * *
* * * * *4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-01526 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6450-01-PFootnotes
For more information on the EnergyGuide labeling program, see: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr305_00.html.
DOE is not aware of any residential conventional ovens that use induction heating technology that are available on the market in the United States.
GE, Whirlpool, and Electrolux, as reported in “U.S. Appliance Industry: Market Share, Life Expectancy & Replacement Market, and Saturation Levels”. Appliance Magazine Market Research Report, January 2010.
Rust also formed on the solid carbon steel test blocks, which could affect heat transfer and repeatability. These issues would likely be more significant for the carbon steel hybrid test blocks due to the additional heat transfer surface between the base and the test block.
Section 7.1.Z2 of the Draft IEC 60350 Amendment, “Cookware and water amount”, specifies the general construction of the cookware, and Table Z3, “Sizes of standardized cookware and water amounts”, specifies the dimensions of the cookware and quantity of water based on the diameter or the surface unit under test.
DOE pursued amendments to Appendix I addressing standby and off mode energy for microwave ovens as part of a separate rulemaking. The most recent notice for this rulemaking is the SNOPR published on May 16, 2012. 76 FR 72322.
Estimated average revenue is based on financial information provided for the two small businesses in reports provided by Dun and Bradstreet.
Attachments View All (0) View document: No documents available. Attachments View All (0) Comment Now! Comment Period Closed Apr 15 2013, at 11:59 PM ET ID: EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013-0001 Tracking Number: View original printed format: Document Information Date Posted: Jan 30, 2013RIN: 1904-AC71CFR: 10 CFR Part 430Federal Register Number: 2013-01526 Show More Details Submitter Information Comments4 Comments Received* See attached file(s) View Comment See attached file(s) View Comment See attached file(s) View Comment Docket Information This document is contained in EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013 Related Dockets: NoneRelated RINs: NoneRelated Documents: 2015-07-01 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for...2014-12-03 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for...2014-09-08 Comment expressing concern regarding the... Related Comments: View all * This count refers to the total comment/submissions received on this document, as of 11:59 PM yesterday. Note: Agencies review all submissions, however some agencies may choose to redact, or withhold, certain submissions (or portions thereof) such as those containing private or proprietary information, inappropriate language, or duplicate/near duplicate examples of a mass-mail campaign. This can result in discrepancies between this count and those displayed when conducting searches on the Public Submission document type. For specific information about an agency’s public submission policy, refer to its website or the Federal Register document. Document text and images courtesy of the Federal Register Home Search Advanced Search Browse By Category Learn About Us eRulemaking Program Media Toolkit Agencies Awards & Recognition Enhancements & Fixes Resources Site Data Regulatory Agenda Agency Reports Required by Statute API Overview Developers Help How to use Regulations.gov FAQs Glossary Connect With Contact Us Privacy and Security Notice User Notice Accessibility Statement Partner Sites We the People Federal Register Reginfo Congress.gov USA.gov E-Gov Opengov Participate Today!