### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 1**  **U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY + + + + +**  **PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURES FOR CONVENTIONAL COOKING PRODUCTS** 

**+ + + + + MONDAY**  **MARCH 4, 2013 + + + + +** **The public meeting convened in Room 8E 089, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000**  **Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. at 9:00 a.m. Doug Brookman, moderator, presiding.** 

**PRESENT DOUG BROOKMAN, Public Solutions, Inc.,**  **Moderator ASHLEY ARMSTRONG, Department of Energy**  **JAMES BATTAGLIA, Navigant Consulting JENNIFER CLEARY, Association of Home**  **Appliance Manufacturers STEVE LEYBOURN, Association of Home**  **Appliance Manufacturers JOANNA MAUER, Appliance Standards Awareness**  **Project JUDITH REICH, Navigant Consulting**  **TROY WATSON, Navigant Consulting PRESENT VIA WEBINAR**  **BRIAN JAMES, Southern California Edison MICHAEL McGONAGLE, GE Appliances**  **NATHAN MOUW CALLIE REIS, Navigant** 

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 2**  **TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA ITEM: PAGE**  **Welcome, Opening Remarks, and Agenda Review**  **Doug Brookman 3 Regulatory History 6**  **Covered Products 7 Active Mode Test**  **Procedure 12**

**Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure 42**  **Compliance with EPCA Requirements 44** 

**Other Issues and Comments, Closing Remarks 50**  **Adjourn 51**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 3**  **1 P R O C E E D I N G S**  

### 2 **(9:04 a.m.)** 

### 3 **MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning,** 

### 4 **everyone, and welcome. This is the U.S.** 

### 5 **Department of Energy's Public Meeting on Test** 

### 6 **Procedures for Conventional Cooking Products.** 

### 7 **Today is Monday, March 4th, 2013,** 

### 8 **here in the Forrestal Building, Department of** 

### 9 **Energy. Glad you could make it this morning.** 

### 10 **My name is Doug Brookman from** 

### 11 **Public Solutions in Baltimore. Let's start** 

### 12 **with introductions. Let's start to my left.** 

### 13 **MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with** 

### 14 **the Association of Home Appliance** 

### 15 **Manufacturers.** 

### 16 **MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.** 

### 17 **MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer,** 

### 18 **Appliance Standards Awareness Project.** 

### 19 **MS. REICH: Judith Reich from** 

### 20 **Navigant.** 

### 21 **MR. BATTAGLIA: James Battaglia,** 

### 22 **Navigant.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 4**  **1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Ashley Armstrong,**  

### 2 **DOE.** 

### 3 **MR. WATSON: Troy Watson, Navigant.** 

### 4 **MR. BROOKMAN: Glad you all could** 

### 5 **make it here this morning.** 

### 6 **Immediately following this brief** 

### 7 **agenda review, there's an opportunity for** 

### 8 **brief summary remarks here at the outset,** 

### 9 **opening remarks that you wish to make for this** 

### 10 **meeting today.** 

### 11 **Following that, we're going to** 

### 12 **move directly to the regulatory history and** 

### 13 **then, from there, to covered products. From** 

### 14 **there, to active mode test procedure.** 

### 15 **Following that, standby off mode** 

### 16 **test procedure, compliance with EPCA** 

### 17 **requirements and then, at the end of the day** 

### 18 **or, I should say at the end of the morning, it** 

### 19 **appears, other issues and comments and then** 

### 20 **another opportunity for anyone that wishes to** 

### 21 **do so, to make closing remarks, cover any** 

### 22 **issues that haven't been covered sufficiently.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 5**  **1 We expect, as the agenda reflects,**  

### 2 **we will adjourn this morning around about** 

### 3 **11:15 or so.** 

### 4 **That's the agenda as written.** 

### 5 **Questions and comments on the agenda?** 

### 6 **I would ask for your** 

### 7 **consideration. Please speak one at a time.** 

### 8 **Please say your name for the record each time** 

### 9 **you speak. If you could keep the focus here,** 

### 10 **put your cell phones on silent mode and limit** 

### 11 **sidebar conversations.** 

### 12 **You've received a packet of** 

### 13 **information as you came in the door today.** 

### 14 **All of the materials in this packet will be** 

### 15 **the basis for presentation and comment.** 

### 16 **And, for those that are joining us** 

### 17 **via the telephone, the webinar we couldn't get** 

### 18 **working this morning, the audio portion of the** 

### 19 **webinar. Apologies for that.** 

### 20 **There will be a complete** 

### 21 **transcript of this meeting available about a** 

### 22 **week or so after this meeting is concluded,**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 6**  **1 and so apologies to the webinar participants.**  

### 2 **You can listen in and you'll have to access** 

### 3 **the transcript.** 

### 4 **Welcoming remarks. Ashley** 

### 5 **Armstrong.** 

### 6 **MS. ARMSTRONG: I'd just like to** 

### 7 **greet you to the public meeting today. Feel** 

### 8 **free -- we're going to go through these** 

### 9 **pretty quickly. Feel free to chime in if you** 

### 10 **want more detail or have more questions about** 

### 11 **something. And, yes. Thanks for coming.** 

### 12 **MR. BROOKMAN: So then, let's --** 

### 13 **MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. I can't get** 

### 14 **this thing working.** 

### 15 **All right. So, Doug just went** 

### 16 **over the agenda, but this is a brief agenda.** 

### 17 **Actually, I don't think we expected to take** 

### 18 **till 11:15, but we'll see how it goes.** 

### 19 **This is just an overview in our** 

### 20 **test procedure rulemaking process. One** 

### 21 **highlight would be that the comment period** 

### 22 **closes on April 15th, so we look forward to**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 7**  **1 getting all comments and feedback on our**  

### 2 **proposal.** 

### 3 **This gives you a little bit of** 

### 4 **legislative background. The test procedure** 

### 5 **rulemaking that we're going to be talking** 

### 6 **about today covers Appendix I of the Consumer** 

### 7 **Products section in the CFR.** 

### 8 **This gives a little bit of** 

### 9 **background. And the only existing standards** 

### 10 **for conventional cooking products prohibit the** 

### 11 **use of a standing pilot right now, and do not** 

### 12 **actually have a test procedure.** 

### 13 **Troy.** 

### 14 **MR. WATSON: Okay. Troy Watson** 

### 15 **from Navigant. And, as Ashley mentioned, the** 

### 16 **purpose of this rulemaking is to consider** 

### 17 **amendments to the test procedures in Appendix** 

### 18 **I, and we're specifically considering** 

### 19 **amendments that would allow for testing** 

### 20 **cooking products that use induction heating.** 

### 21 **And what induction cooking is,** 

### 22 **it's when a product uses an oscillating**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 8**  **1 magnetic field to induce current in the**  

### 2 **cooking vessel. Should I just ignore that?** 

### 3 **MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. That's fine.** 

### 4 **MR. WATSON: Okay. So, induction** 

### 5 **cooking uses an oscillating magnetic field to** 

### 6 **induce current in the cooking vessel, and that** 

### 7 **current in the cooking vessel creates heat as** 

### 8 **the current encounters the resistance in the** 

### 9 **cooking vessel, and that heat is then used to** 

### 10 **cook the food.** 

### 11 **One thing to note is that** 

### 12 **induction cooking only works with** 

### 13 **ferromagnetic materials, so this is certain** 

### 14 **types of steel or iron, but not materials such** 

### 15 **as aluminum.** 

### 16 **Okay. So, as the legislative** 

### 17 **history slide showed, the test procedures were** 

### 18 **established in a May 1978 final rule. In this** 

### 19 **final rule, DOE did consider induction cooking** 

### 20 **tops, but did not establish a test procedure** 

### 21 **for them at that time because they were** 

### 22 **relatively new products and they didn't make**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 9**  **1 up a significant portion of the market at that**  

### 2 **time.** 

### 3 **Recently, DOE surveyed the market** 

### 4 **and found that roughly ten percent of all** 

### 5 **cooking tops available in the market used** 

### 6 **induction heating.** 

### 7 **Additionally, the three** 

### 8 **manufacturers that make up more than 84** 

### 9 **percent of the market, they all offer products** 

### 10 **that use induction heating.** 

### 11 **So, given the increased** 

### 12 **availability of induction cooking products on** 

### 13 **the market, DOE believes they warrant** 

### 14 **including in the Appendix I test procedures,** 

### 15 **and this would also allow these products to be** 

### 16 **considered as part of any future energy** 

### 17 **conservation standards rulemaking for cooking** 

### 18 **products.** 

### 19 **And one thing to note here is** 

### 20 **that, in the survey, DOE only found that** 

### 21 **induction cooking was used in cooking tops and** 

### 22 **not in any ovens.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 10**  **1 So, the CFR contains a definition**  

### 2 **for a conventional cooking top, as shown up** 

### 3 **here. It specifies that the product must use** 

### 4 **gas flame or electric resistance heating. And** 

### 5 **so, clearly, that doesn't cover induction** 

### 6 **cooking based on the definition I just showed** 

### 7 **on the slide before.** 

### 8 **So, DOE is proposing to amend the** 

### 9 **definition of conventional cooking --** 

### 10 **conventional cooking top just to add in** 

### 11 **electric inductive heating as a -- the heat** 

### 12 **source for the product.** 

### 13 **The CFR also contains a definition** 

### 14 **for conventional range and DOE is not** 

### 15 **proposing any amendments to that definition as** 

### 16 **part of this rulemaking, but we'd like to note** 

### 17 **that the proposed amendment to the cooking top** 

### 18 **definition would allow for the definition of** 

### 19 **conventional range to cover products that use** 

### 20 **an induction cooking top along with a** 

### 21 **conventional oven.** 

### 22 **So, similar to that definition of**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 11**  **1 conventional cooking top in the CFR, Appendix**  

### 2 **I contains the definition of active mode that** 

### 3 **specifies the heat source as either gas flame,** 

### 4 **electric resistance heating or microwave** 

### 5 **energy.** 

### 6 **So, DOE is similarly proposing to** 

### 7 **amend the definition of active mode to account** 

### 8 **for products that use electric inductive** 

### 9 **heating.** 

### 10 **So these comment request boxes** 

### 11 **correspond to the issues DOE requested comment** 

### 12 **on in the NOPR document. This one here is** 

### 13 **requesting comment regarding the proposed** 

### 14 **amendments to the definitions of conventional** 

### 15 **cooking top and active mode and DOE again** 

### 16 **notes that the definition of conventional** 

### 17 **range would not be amended under this** 

### 18 **rulemaking.** 

### 19 **Any comments or concerns there?** 

### 20 **MR. BROOKMAN: Comments here at** 

### 21 **the outset?** 

### 22 **(No response.)**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 12**  **1 MR. BROOKMAN: No. No comments.**  

### 2 **Okay.** 

### 3 **MR. WATSON: And feel free to jump** 

### 4 **in at any point because, like Ashley said,** 

### 5 **we're kind of going through pretty quickly.** 

### 6 **So now we'll jump into the active** 

### 7 **mode testing for cooking products. This slide** 

### 8 **describes the current test procedure found in** 

### 9 **Appendix I, so you pretty much select a test** 

### 10 **block for each surface unit on the cooking top** 

### 11 **based on that surface unit's diameter.** 

### 12 **You allow the test block and the** 

### 13 **cooking top to reach ambient temperature. You** 

### 14 **turn the surface unit to its maximum energy** 

### 15 **input setting.** 

### 16 **You allow the test block to** 

### 17 **increase in temperature by 144 degrees at** 

### 18 **which point you would reduce the surface unit** 

### 19 **setting to one-fourth of its maximum energy** 

### 20 **input rate, and you continue the test for 15** 

### 21 **minutes at that lower setting.** 

### 22 **The energy efficiency of the**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 13**  **1 surface unit is determined by the ratio of the**  

### 2 **energy transferred to the block, divided by** 

### 3 **the energy consumed by the cooking top during** 

### 4 **the test.** 

### 5 **And the energy transferred to the** 

### 6 **test block is determined based on its total** 

### 7 **temperature increase over the test period.** 

### 8 **So, as I mentioned, there are** 

### 9 **different test block sizes that are used based** 

### 10 **on a surface unit's diameter, and that's only** 

### 11 **for electric surface units. All gas units use** 

### 12 **the larger of the two test blocks.** 

### 13 **So, you can see here that both of** 

### 14 **the test blocks are made of aluminum alloy,** 

### 15 **6061, and this is not a ferromagnetic material** 

### 16 **and, therefore, not compatible with induction** 

### 17 **cooking tops.** 

### 18 **And one thing to point out here is** 

### 19 **the test block diameters are nine inches for** 

### 20 **the large block and six and a quarter inches** 

### 21 **for the smaller test block.** 

### 22 **This slide just shows the test**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 14**  **1 blocks for anybody who might be unfamiliar**  

### 2 **with the test procedure. It's nothing too** 

### 3 **exciting, just a block of metal. These are** 

### 4 **the smaller test blocks, just for your** 

### 5 **information.** 

### 6 **So, in support of this rulemaking,** 

### 7 **DOE conducted investigative testing to** 

### 8 **determine an appropriate method for** 

### 9 **incorporating induction cooking tops in the** 

### 10 **Appendix I test procedures.** 

### 11 **DOE conducted the testing with** 

### 12 **potential substitute test blocks that could** 

### 13 **replace the aluminum, and the substitute test** 

### 14 **blocks would be ferromagnetic and compatible** 

### 15 **with induction technologies.** 

### 16 **So the testing followed the** 

### 17 **existing method in Appendix I. The only** 

### 18 **difference was the aluminum blocks were** 

### 19 **swapped out for the potential substitute test** 

### 20 **blocks.** 

### 21 **The goal of the testing was to** 

### 22 **determine what effects the substitute test**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 15**  **1 blocks would have on the test-to-test**  

### 2 **repeatability and any overall efficiency** 

### 3 **effects.** 

### 4 **The test sample included three** 

### 5 **conventional cooking tops, those were used to** 

### 6 **establish a baseline efficiency with the** 

### 7 **aluminum test blocks for comparison to the** 

### 8 **substitutes.** 

### 9 **The three conventional cooking** 

### 10 **tops included a smooth top, an electric coil** 

### 11 **top and a gas cooking top. And the test** 

### 12 **sample also included three induction cooking** 

### 13 **tops.** 

### 14 **During the testing, the DOE** 

### 15 **repeated each test five times for each test** 

### 16 **block type on each surface unit that was** 

### 17 **tested.** 

### 18 **One thing to note is that, for the** 

### 19 **gas surface unit, the tests were only repeated** 

### 20 **four times.** 

### 21 **So this slide just gives a general** 

### 22 **description of the potential substitute test**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 16**  **1 blocks that we investigated as part of this**  

### 2 **testing.** 

### 3 **The first potential block was the** 

### 4 **carbon steel test block. These were made of** 

### 5 **carbon steel alloy 1018, which is** 

### 6 **ferromagnetic and, similar to the existing** 

### 7 **aluminum blocks, it was just a solid test** 

### 8 **block, just one piece.** 

### 9 **After that, DOE tested hybrid test** 

### 10 **blocks. The first was made of a carbon steel** 

### 11 **1018 base. This is just a thin disk and, on** 

### 12 **top of that was an aluminum alloy body.** 

### 13 **The stainless steel test blocks --** 

### 14 **or stainless steel hybrid test blocks, rather,** 

### 15 **were similar to that, just with a stainless** 

### 16 **steel 430 base, and stainless steel 430 is** 

### 17 **also ferromagnetic.** 

### 18 **So, for all of the candidate test** 

### 19 **blocks investigated during this testing, DOE** 

### 20 **maintained the six and a quarter and nine-inch** 

### 21 **outer diameters, and DOE also maintained the** 

### 22 **overall heat capacity of the current aluminum**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 17**  **1 test blocks, and DOE did this by varying the**  

### 2 **heights of the test blocks.** 

### 3 **And the reason that the diameters** 

### 4 **and heat capacities were maintained is because** 

### 5 **the May 1978 final rule established these** 

### 6 **parameters to reflect consumer cooking** 

### 7 **behaviors. And DOE is not aware of any** 

### 8 **information indicating that cooking behavior** 

### 9 **has changed, so we maintained these parameters** 

### 10 **during our testing.** 

### 11 **And, just to get this out there,** 

### 12 **up-front, we are proposing to amend the test** 

### 13 **procedure to use the stainless steel hybrid** 

### 14 **test blocks in place of the existing aluminum** 

### 15 **test blocks. And the following slides will** 

### 16 **give a summary of our testing and more** 

### 17 **justification for this proposal.** 

### 18 **So these are more photos of the** 

### 19 **substitute test blocks. On the left are the** 

### 20 **two carbon steel blocks. Those are the large** 

### 21 **diameter and small diameter.** 

### 22 **The photo on the right shows one**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 18**  **1 of the hybrid test blocks as a stainless steel**  

### 2 **hybrid block, and you can see on the bottom is** 

### 3 **a thin disk. That's the base made of** 

### 4 **stainless steel 430.** 

### 5 **And on the right is the aluminum** 

### 6 **test block, just for reference, and you can** 

### 7 **see the heights are slightly different, and** 

### 8 **that's to maintain the heat capacities, and** 

### 9 **you have to change that because of the** 

### 10 **different materials in the block.** 

### 11 **So the first set of tests were** 

### 12 **conducted on the current aluminum test blocks** 

### 13 **on the three conventional cooking tops in the** 

### 14 **sample. These established the baseline for** 

### 15 **the repeatability and efficiency, and it was** 

### 16 **used as a point of comparison for any of the** 

### 17 **candidate test blocks that were tested later** 

### 18 **on.** 

### 19 **And, as you can see, the -- for** 

### 20 **the test, the test repeatability, the aluminum** 

### 21 **test blocks produced standard deviations of** 

### 22 **less than three percent for each surface unit**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 19**  **1 tested over the set of five tests conducted on**  

### 2 **each surface unit.** 

### 3 **And from this testing, DOE -- the** 

### 4 **goal of the further testing was to find** 

### 5 **substitute test blocks that would result in** 

### 6 **similar tests, the test repeatability and, if** 

### 7 **possible, better.** 

### 8 **So, moving on to the carbon steel** 

### 9 **test blocks, this just provides the** 

### 10 **specifications for the test blocks.** 

### 11 **Previously, I had shown the** 

### 12 **aluminum test block specifications and those** 

### 13 **were almost three inches, or three inches,** 

### 14 **slightly less than that. And you can see the** 

### 15 **height of these carbon steel test blocks is** 

### 16 **much smaller, and that's to maintain the** 

### 17 **overall heat capacities.** 

### 18 **So, from the test results on the** 

### 19 **carbon steel test blocks we found that they** 

### 20 **resulted in similar efficiencies to the** 

### 21 **aluminum test blocks. The efficiencies were** 

### 22 **slightly lower, but not significantly so.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 20**  **1 We also found that the carbon**  

### 2 **steel test blocks produced test-to-test** 

### 3 **repeatability that was similar to the aluminum** 

### 4 **test blocks.** 

### 5 **So, they appear to be a reasonable** 

### 6 **substitute for the aluminum test blocks.** 

### 7 **However, DOE had concerns that they may not** 

### 8 **actually reflect how induction cooking tops** 

### 9 **operate in real-world situations, and this is** 

### 10 **because, typically, an induction cooking top** 

### 11 **induces current only in a thin layer of** 

### 12 **ferromagnetic material in the pot or pan** 

### 13 **that's being used to cook.** 

### 14 **And in this case, there would be a** 

### 15 **large block of ferromagnetic material on the** 

### 16 **cooking top, so that is not representative of** 

### 17 **how induction cooking tops are actually used** 

### 18 **in the real world.** 

### 19 **So, to address that concern, DOE** 

### 20 **moved on to testing hybrid test blocks which,** 

### 21 **as I described before, are a thin base of** 

### 22 **ferromagnetic material with an aluminum alloy**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 21**  **1 body.**  

### 2 **This first set of test blocks used** 

### 3 **a carbon steel 1018 base and, as I said** 

### 4 **before, that is a ferromagnetic material.** 

### 5 **DOE chose a base thickness of a** 

### 6 **quarter inch to represent a typical pot or pan** 

### 7 **thickness, and that also is thick enough to** 

### 8 **prevent any warping of a thin disk during the** 

### 9 **heating and cooling periods.** 

### 10 **Oh. One other thing to note with** 

### 11 **the quarter inch base is that one of the** 

### 12 **induction cooking tops in our test sample was** 

### 13 **shipped with an adaptor plate and that would** 

### 14 **be used with non-ferromagnetic cookware. And** 

### 15 **we noted that the thickness of that adaptor** 

### 16 **plate was roughly a quarter inch thick.** 

### 17 **So the carbon steel hybrid test** 

### 18 **blocks also produced efficiencies that were** 

### 19 **similar to the aluminum test blocks and the** 

### 20 **carbon steel test blocks.** 

### 21 **They were more similar to the** 

### 22 **carbon steel test blocks but, given the**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 22**  **1 variation from test to test, we couldn't say**  

### 2 **it was significantly different from the** 

### 3 **aluminum test blocks.** 

### 4 **For five of the six induction** 

### 5 **surface units tested, the carbon steel hybrid** 

### 6 **test blocks resulted in efficiencies that were** 

### 7 **actually higher than the carbon steel test** 

### 8 **blocks, and this suggests that there may have** 

### 9 **been some inefficiencies related to the** 

### 10 **testing with the solid carbon steel test** 

### 11 **blocks.** 

### 12 **But while five of the six showed** 

### 13 **higher efficiencies, one of the six showed a** 

### 14 **fairly large drop in efficiency, so it's hard** 

### 15 **to say if -- if there is any difference moving** 

### 16 **from the solid carbon steel test block to the** 

### 17 **hybrid test blocks.** 

### 18 **In terms of repeatability, it was** 

### 19 **again similar to both the aluminum test blocks** 

### 20 **and the carbon steel test blocks, but DOE did** 

### 21 **have one concern regarding repeatability with** 

### 22 **these test blocks, and that's that we observed**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 23**  **1 rust forming on the carbon steel as testing**  

### 2 **went on, and this could lead to inconsistent** 

### 3 **heat transfer between the base and the test** 

### 4 **block body.** 

### 5 **We also observed this on the solid** 

### 6 **carbon steel test blocks, but it was less of a** 

### 7 **concern there as opposed to the hybrid steel** 

### 8 **test blocks because there's an additional heat** 

### 9 **transfer surface there between the base and** 

### 10 **the body.** 

### 11 **So, to address the rusting concern** 

### 12 **we moved on and tested a stainless steel** 

### 13 **hybrid test block, and that used stainless** 

### 14 **steel alloy 430 in the base, which is also** 

### 15 **ferromagnetic, but it's more resistant to rust** 

### 16 **than carbon steel 1018.** 

### 17 **And you can see here we maintained** 

### 18 **the quarter-inch base thickness and the** 

### 19 **aluminum bodies for this were actually the** 

### 20 **same as for the carbon steel hybrid test** 

### 21 **blocks.** 

### 22 **That's because carbon steel and**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 24**  **1 stainless steel 430 have similar heat**  

### 2 **capacities.** 

### 3 **So, after testing the stainless** 

### 4 **steel hybrid test blocks we observed better** 

### 5 **repeatability than for either the aluminum,** 

### 6 **carbon steel, or carbon steel hybrid test** 

### 7 **blocks.** 

### 8 **But, with the better repeatability** 

### 9 **came a slight decrease in efficiency and,** 

### 10 **compared to the carbon steel hybrid test** 

### 11 **blocks, the stainless steel hybrid test blocks** 

### 12 **produced results that were about 2.5** 

### 13 **percentage points lower.** 

### 14 **This slide shows a summary of all** 

### 15 **of our testing results on the different types** 

### 16 **of products we tested. The aluminum is only** 

### 17 **included in the conventional sample set** 

### 18 **because it's not compatible with induction.** 

### 19 **And, as you can see, the stainless** 

### 20 **steel hybrid test blocks had the best** 

### 21 **repeatability in terms of the standard** 

### 22 **deviation and the tightness of the 95 percent**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 25**  **1 confidence interval around the mean**  

### 2 **efficiency.** 

### 3 **But, you can also see that the** 

### 4 **stainless steel hybrid test blocks had the** 

### 5 **lowest efficiency values, at more than four** 

### 6 **percent lower than the aluminum test blocks on** 

### 7 **the conventional sample and, as I said on the** 

### 8 **slide before, about two and a half percent** 

### 9 **lower than the carbon steel hybrid test blocks** 

### 10 **when looking at all of the cooking tops that** 

### 11 **we tested.** 

### 12 **So, because the stainless steel** 

### 13 **hybrid test blocks produced the most** 

### 14 **repeatable results, those are the blocks DOE** 

### 15 **is proposing to use in the amended Appendix I** 

### 16 **test procedure.** 

### 17 **And DOE had considered just** 

### 18 **establishing one set of test blocks for** 

### 19 **induction cooking and leaving the aluminum** 

### 20 **test blocks as-is for conventional cooking** 

### 21 **tops as they are currently defined but,** 

### 22 **because the stainless steel hybrid test blocks**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 26**  **1 showed a drop in efficiency, DOE is proposing**  

### 2 **to use those test blocks for all cooking tops,** 

### 3 **and that way, there's a consistent basis for** 

### 4 **comparing the efficiencies over all types of** 

### 5 **products out there.** 

### 6 **So here, DOE seeks comment on its** 

### 7 **proposal to use the stainless steel hybrid** 

### 8 **test blocks for testing all -- all cooking** 

### 9 **tops that would be covered by the proposed** 

### 10 **definition of conventional cooking tops.** 

### 11 **And DOE is also interested in** 

### 12 **receiving feedback on the potential burden** 

### 13 **associated with the requirement for this new** 

### 14 **test equipment.** 

### 15 **MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer Cleary.** 

### 16 **MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with** 

### 17 **AHAM.** 

### 18 **Did you guys do any testing on how** 

### 19 **the number of blocks would impact the test** 

### 20 **results?** 

### 21 **MR. WATSON: Do you mean moving** 

### 22 **the number of different block sizes?**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 27**  **1 MS. CLEARY: No. Just having like**  

### 2 **different numbers on the cook top.** 

### 3 **MR. WATSON: No, we didn't look** 

### 4 **into that. Each test we did used one cook top** 

### 5 **or -- sorry, one test block on the surface** 

### 6 **unit at a time. We didn't test multiple** 

### 7 **surface units at the same time.** 

### 8 **MS. CLEARY: Okay. I'm sorry. I** 

### 9 **have a few questions.** 

### 10 **MR. WATSON: Yes. Sure.** 

### 11 **MS. CLEARY: Did you do any** 

### 12 **examination of the heat transfer between the** 

### 13 **stainless steel and the aluminum and the** 

### 14 **hybrid blocks or any study of if there would** 

### 15 **be warping between the two surfaces?** 

### 16 **MR. WATSON: In our investigative** 

### 17 **testing, we didn't see any warping. Prior to** 

### 18 **this testing, there was some investigative** 

### 19 **testing that used an even thinner base and we** 

### 20 **did observe warping in that, and that's why we** 

### 21 **went up to the quarter-inch base.** 

### 22 **In terms of investigating the heat**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 28**  **1 transfer between the two, the base and the**  

### 2 **body, we didn't do any investigation other** 

### 3 **than just running the tests.** 

### 4 **MS. CLEARY: Okay.** 

### 5 **MR. WATSON: Is there any type of** 

### 6 **investigation, in particular, you're thinking** 

### 7 **of there?** 

### 8 **MS. CLEARY: No. Just wondering -** 

### 9 **-** 

### 10 **MR. WATSON: Okay.** 

### 11 **MS. CLEARY: -- I guess, a little** 

### 12 **more detail and --** 

### 13 **MR. WATSON: Yes.** 

### 14 **MS. CLEARY: Okay. And my last** 

### 15 **question is, I know you talked a little bit** 

### 16 **about the determination of the thickness of** 

### 17 **the stainless steel portion of the block, and** 

### 18 **I see in the NOPR there's a statement about,** 

### 19 **for the hybrid test blocks, DOE set the** 

### 20 **thickness of the steel bases at a quarter of** 

### 21 **an inch, to be thin enough to represent the** 

### 22 **thickness of a typical pot or pan while still**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 29**  **1 being thick enough to prevent warping.**  

### 2 **So I was just wondering, did you** 

### 3 **guys have data or information -- where were** 

### 4 **you finding out what the typical thickness of** 

### 5 **a pot or a pan would be?** 

### 6 **MR. WATSON: I guess we didn't --** 

### 7 **we didn't conduct any studies. If you have** 

### 8 **any information on that, we'd appreciate it.** 

### 9 **MS. CLEARY: Okay. Thank you.** 

### 10 **MR. WATSON: One thing to note** 

### 11 **regarding that, later on in the test procedure** 

### 12 **-- or in the presentation, I'll talk about** 

### 13 **water heating tests that we did, and that used** 

### 14 **IEC test equipment, and we noted that the base** 

### 15 **in that equipment was .24 inches thick,** 

### 16 **converting from metric to inches. But so,** 

### 17 **that's pretty consistent with the thickness** 

### 18 **that we chose.** 

### 19 **MS. CLEARY: Okay. Great. Thank** 

### 20 **you.** 

### 21 **MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna.** 

### 22 **MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I'm**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 30**  **1 just curious. My -- my understanding was that**  

### 2 **induction cook tops are typically more** 

### 3 **efficient than electric resistance.** 

### 4 **I don't know if that's the case or** 

### 5 **not, but I was just curious about whether the** 

### 6 **results, kind of comparing the electric** 

### 7 **resistance cook tops in the test and the** 

### 8 **induction, whether kind of the relative** 

### 9 **efficiencies reflect what we would expect.** 

### 10 **MR. WATSON: Oh, yes. So I should** 

### 11 **have pointed out, at the end of the** 

### 12 **presentation is an appendix that has more** 

### 13 **detailed results. It should be in the packet** 

### 14 **so if you want to refer to that, it should** 

### 15 **break it down by type of cook top that we** 

### 16 **tested.** 

### 17 **MS. MAUER: So I haven't studied** 

### 18 **them carefully, but from what I have looked** 

### 19 **at, it doesn't look like the -- I guess, in** 

### 20 **some cases, some of the induction cook tops** 

### 21 **were more efficient than electric resistance** 

### 22 **and other cases not. Is that --**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 31**  **1 MR. WATSON: Yes.**  

### 2 **MS. MAUER: -- what we would** 

### 3 **expect, or --** 

### 4 **MR. WATSON: I'm -- I can't really** 

### 5 **comment on what we'd expect because there** 

### 6 **hadn't been a test procedure in place for** 

### 7 **induction cooking tops. I'm only familiar** 

### 8 **with the results that we came up with and it** 

### 9 **looked to be on a unit-by-unit basis.** 

### 10 **MS. ARMSTRONG: So -- this is** 

### 11 **Ashley. So if I look at slide 54, right, and** 

### 12 **I'm guessing it's the same, more or less,** 

### 13 **table that's in the Federal Register notice or** 

### 14 **multiple tables.** 

### 15 **I mean, in general, the trend** 

### 16 **seems to be showing that induction is** 

### 17 **generally more efficient, but not always. So,** 

### 18 **you do see, you know, kind of a trend that** 

### 19 **induction looks to be, from our limited** 

### 20 **sample, showing a higher mean efficiency** 

### 21 **results on a per model basis, but that's not** 

### 22 **an across-the-board, always the case.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 32**  **1 There's a couple of units that we**  

### 2 **tested with a coil that have a pretty high** 

### 3 **mean efficiency as well as an induction one** 

### 4 **that's pretty low. So -- okay.** 

### 5 **MR. BROOKMAN: Additional** 

### 6 **questions or comments?** 

### 7 **(No response.)** 

### 8 **MR. WATSON: Okay. So, like I** 

### 9 **mentioned on that slide, we also conducted a** 

### 10 **few investigative water heating tests, and the** 

### 11 **reason we did this is because water may** 

### 12 **provide a heating medium that's more** 

### 13 **representative of how consumers actually use** 

### 14 **their cooking tops.** 

### 15 **I know -- I haven't really seen** 

### 16 **anybody heat up a block of metal on their** 

### 17 **cooking top at home, but by switching from the** 

### 18 **blocks to water heating, that may introduce** 

### 19 **additional sources of variability that you** 

### 20 **avoid when using the metal test blocks.** 

### 21 **And so, for this investigative** 

### 22 **testing, DOE relied on a draft amendment to**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 33**  **1 the IEC Standard 60350-2, Edition 1.0, and**  

### 2 **that's household electric cooking appliances,** 

### 3 **Part 2: Hobs, method for measuring** 

### 4 **performance.** 

### 5 **DOE didn't rely on it word-for** 

### 6 **word, but it was used as the basis for our** 

### 7 **investigative testing.** 

### 8 **So, in the IEC draft amendment, it** 

### 9 **specifies the quantity of water to be tested** 

### 10 **in a standardized cooking vessel, based on the** 

### 11 **surface unit diameter.** 

### 12 **And so, for the investigative** 

### 13 **testing, DOE chose the cooking vessels and** 

### 14 **water quantities that most closely match the** 

### 15 **existing DOE test block diameters, and the** 

### 16 **specification for these -- for the cookware** 

### 17 **and water is included in this table.** 

### 18 **You can see that the small -- it's** 

### 19 **actually a pot, had about a six-inch diameter,** 

### 20 **and the large one was a little bit over nine** 

### 21 **inches in outer diameter.** 

### 22 **So this shows the custom IEC**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 34**  **1 cookingware, and the base and walls of the pot**  

### 2 **are made of stainless steel, and the lid is** 

### 3 **made of aluminum.** 

### 4 **And you can see there's a small** 

### 5 **hole in the center of the lid and that's to** 

### 6 **support the thermocouple that measures the** 

### 7 **temperature of the water in the pot.** 

### 8 **So the method, itself, there's,** 

### 9 **again, a heat-up period. The water starts at** 

### 10 **a low temperature and then is heated to 194** 

### 11 **degrees Fahrenheit, and this is done at the** 

### 12 **maximum energy input rate, similar to the** 

### 13 **current DOE test procedure.** 

### 14 **After the water heats up to 194** 

### 15 **degrees Fahrenheit, it's maintained above that** 

### 16 **temperature but as close to that temperature** 

### 17 **as possible, and then there's a simmering** 

### 18 **period at that higher temperature for 20** 

### 19 **minutes.** 

### 20 **And the purpose of heating it to** 

### 21 **that point is to get it close to boiling, but** 

### 22 **then you don't want to go too much higher and**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 35**  **1 have a lot of water boil off.**  

### 2 **The final metric from the IEC** 

### 3 **draft amendment is -- it describes the energy** 

### 4 **required over the total -- entire test period** 

### 5 **per 1000 grams of water, so that accounts for** 

### 6 **the heat-up time, and then the 20-minute** 

### 7 **simmering period.** 

### 8 **So, DOE observed a number of** 

### 9 **issues with this testing. The main concern is** 

### 10 **that the water approached boiling -- even at** 

### 11 **194 degrees Fahrenheit it would begin bubbling** 

### 12 **and you could see vapor coming off of it.** 

### 13 **And throughout the entire test,** 

### 14 **which was longer than 20 minutes because you** 

### 15 **have the heat-up period, a significant amount** 

### 16 **of water would boil off or evaporate off** 

### 17 **during that test.** 

### 18 **DOE also observed that it was** 

### 19 **difficult to find the proper setting to** 

### 20 **maintain the 194 degree simmering temperature.** 

### 21 **Even when testing with the same** 

### 22 **amount of water on the same surface unit at**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 36**  **1 the same setting there would be some wide**  

### 2 **variations in temperature from test-to-test,** 

### 3 **and that would lead to either heavy boiling or** 

### 4 **no boiling, so you'd get differences from** 

### 5 **test-to-test there.** 

### 6 **So, to try to account for these** 

### 7 **variations from test-to-test, DOE developed an** 

### 8 **efficiency calculation and this would take** 

### 9 **into account the total temperature rise of the** 

### 10 **water and cooking vessel, and it would also** 

### 11 **account for any water that was evaporated or** 

### 12 **boiled off during the test.** 

### 13 **And that resulted in an efficiency** 

### 14 **metric that described the total heat** 

### 15 **transferred to the cooking vessel and water** 

### 16 **divided by the total amount of energy used by** 

### 17 **the cooking top, and that's similar to the** 

### 18 **current metric in the test procedure, so it** 

### 19 **allowed for a more direct comparison to the** 

### 20 **test block results.** 

### 21 **So this is the same summary slide** 

### 22 **with the water heating tests added in. As you**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 37**  **1 can see, the efficiency results were higher**  

### 2 **than for the test blocks, but that's not** 

### 3 **really a direct comparison because there's** 

### 4 **different test equipment and a different total** 

### 5 **test period between the tests.** 

### 6 **But the key thing to look at is the** 

### 7 **repeatability. You could see there was a lot** 

### 8 **more variation in the water heating test,** 

### 9 **compared to the test blocks, and especially** 

### 10 **the stainless steel hybrid test blocks, which** 

### 11 **had the best repeatability.** 

### 12 **So DOE thinks the variability in** 

### 13 **the water heating test could be limited with** 

### 14 **some more stringent tolerances on the ambient** 

### 15 **test conditions, and these would be tolerances** 

### 16 **on air pressure, temperature, humidity,** 

### 17 **basically anything that could affect water** 

### 18 **boiling off during the test.** 

### 19 **At this time DOE is not proposing** 

### 20 **a water heating test procedure because it** 

### 21 **didn't show any improvement in repeatability,** 

### 22 **compared to the block heating test, and the**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 38**  **1 additional ambient temperature condition**  

### 2 **controls that would be needed to improve the** 

### 3 **repeatability could place a burden on** 

### 4 **manufacturers and third-party test labs.** 

### 5 **So here, DOE requests comment on** 

### 6 **the water heating test. Again, it's not** 

### 7 **proposing at this time to use a water heating** 

### 8 **test, but DOE is interested, if it should** 

### 9 **consider water heating tests, what the** 

### 10 **appropriate test method would be, along with** 

### 11 **the appropriate test conditions and any burden** 

### 12 **that would be tied to the water heating tests.** 

### 13 **MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna.** 

### 14 **MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just a** 

### 15 **question. Did you find that efficiency, as** 

### 16 **measured by the stainless steel hybrid test as** 

### 17 **a good predictor of efficiency as measured by** 

### 18 **the water heating test, at least in terms of** 

### 19 **kind of relative ranking of units?** 

### 20 **MR. WATSON: Off the top of my** 

### 21 **head, I don't -- I don't know. I'd have to** 

### 22 **look at those tables.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 39**  **1 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional**  

### 2 **comments?** 

### 3 **(No response.)** 

### 4 **MR. WATSON: Anything, Ashley?** 

### 5 **MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm trying to do** 

### 6 **it --** 

### 7 **MR. WATSON: Yes.** 

### 8 **MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley** 

### 9 **from DOE. A quick look at slides 54 and 55.** 

### 10 **I'm going to say it's close, but it's not the** 

### 11 **exact same, model-by-model number. So, the** 

### 12 **relative trends are similar, but the exact** 

### 13 **differentials are kind of different, so --** 

### 14 **MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you.** 

### 15 **MR. WATSON: And just to add to** 

### 16 **that, the -- I believe the -- the mean** 

### 17 **efficiencies that we got for each surface** 

### 18 **unit, they were in the same range so, with the** 

### 19 **increased variability of the water heating** 

### 20 **tests, it might be difficult to rely on those** 

### 21 **to rank the units.** 

### 22 **MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 40**  **1 MR. WATSON: So, in addition to**  

### 2 **the active mode testing, we're aware of one** 

### 3 **additional limitation in the test procedure.** 

### 4 **As I described previously, the** 

### 5 **proper test block size is determined based on** 

### 6 **the electric surface unit's diameter, which** 

### 7 **assumes that the electric surface unit is a** 

### 8 **circle.** 

### 9 **So, the current test procedure** 

### 10 **doesn't specify what the proper test block** 

### 11 **size is for noncircular electric surface** 

### 12 **units.** 

### 13 **So, in the NOPR, DOE is proposing** 

### 14 **that the electric surface unit's smallest** 

### 15 **dimension be used to determine the appropriate** 

### 16 **test block size, and this is consistent with** 

### 17 **the draft amendment to IEC Standard 60350 that** 

### 18 **we used for the water heating test.** 

### 19 **DOE notes that it's not proposing** 

### 20 **to change the requirement that the larger test** 

### 21 **block be used for all gas surface units.** 

### 22 **So here, DOE is inviting comment**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 41**  **1 on whether using the smallest dimension of an**  

### 2 **electric surface unit is appropriate for** 

### 3 **determining test block size.** 

### 4 **MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer.** 

### 5 **MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. I just** 

### 6 **have a few questions.** 

### 7 **MR. WATSON: Sure.** 

### 8 **MS. CLEARY: Did you guys do any** 

### 9 **testing on the noncircular type of units?** 

### 10 **MR. WATSON: No. None of the** 

### 11 **units in our test sample had noncircular** 

### 12 **surface units, so this proposal is pretty much** 

### 13 **based on the proposal in the IEC amendment.** 

### 14 **MS. CLEARY: Okay. And with** 

### 15 **regard to the gas test block, so I know the** 

### 16 **current test procedure, and you just** 

### 17 **mentioned, says to use the large, but it looks** 

### 18 **like from some of the tables in the NOPR that** 

### 19 **the small was used. Is there an error or --** 

### 20 **MR. WATSON: If it says that, it's** 

### 21 **an error, because the large size block was** 

### 22 **used for all of the gas testing.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 42**  **1 MS. MAUER: And my final question**  

### 2 **is whether or not did you -- did DOE consider** 

### 3 **different sizes of hybrid test blocks, you** 

### 4 **know, maybe an intermediate size or something** 

### 5 **larger or were there -- was there any testing** 

### 6 **done on how the size of the test block being** 

### 7 **used would impact the results of the test?** 

### 8 **MR. WATSON: No. For this testing** 

### 9 **we just used the current test diameters and,** 

### 10 **as I said, on one of the earlier slides, that** 

### 11 **was to maintain the proposal -- or maintain** 

### 12 **the test blocks that were established in the** 

### 13 **1978 final rule that were supposed to reflect** 

### 14 **consumer cooking behavior.** 

### 15 **MS. MAUER: Okay. Thank you.** 

### 16 **MR. BROOKMAN: No additional** 

### 17 **comments.** 

### 18 **MR. WATSON: Okay. So we are** 

### 19 **moving along pretty quick. We will go into** 

### 20 **standby and off mode test procedure.** 

### 21 **So, as we said earlier on, DOE** 

### 22 **recently conducted a separate rulemaking that**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 43**  **1 addressed standby and off mode, standby and**  

### 2 **off mode test procedures and certain active** 

### 3 **mode provisions for conventional cooking** 

### 4 **products, as well as dishwashers and** 

### 5 **dehumidifiers.** 

### 6 **For conventional cooking products,** 

### 7 **the October 2012 final rule addressed standby** 

### 8 **mode and off mode energy consumption, and fan** 

### 9 **only mode operation, but I believe that was** 

### 10 **just for ovens, not related to cooking tops.** 

### 11 **So the amendments in the October** 

### 12 **2012 final rule applied to conventional** 

### 13 **cooking products and, as discussed earlier,** 

### 14 **DOE is proposing to amend the definition of** 

### 15 **conventional cooking top to include induction** 

### 16 **cooking -- induction heating technology.** 

### 17 **So, under the proposed definition** 

### 18 **of conventional cooking top, induction cooking** 

### 19 **products would also be covered by the test** 

### 20 **procedure amendments in the October 2012 final** 

### 21 **rule.** 

### 22 **DOE notes that it didn't observe**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 44**  **1 any standby or off mode features that appeared**  

### 2 **to be unique to induction cooking tops and,** 

### 3 **therefore, the inclusion of induction cooking** 

### 4 **products wouldn't warrant changes to the** 

### 5 **amendments that were established in the** 

### 6 **October 2012 final rule.** 

### 7 **So here DOE invites comment on** 

### 8 **whether induction -- induction cooking** 

### 9 **products would require any separate** 

### 10 **consideration for standby and off mode** 

### 11 **testing.** 

### 12 **MR. BROOKMAN: No comments.** 

### 13 **MR. WATSON: Okay. And our last** 

### 14 **section, Compliance with EPCA requirements.** 

### 15 **DOE is tentatively concluding that** 

### 16 **the proposed test procedures wouldn't be** 

### 17 **unduly burdensome to conduct.** 

### 18 **As you can see, DOE estimates that** 

### 19 **the additional cost for the new test blocks** 

### 20 **would be roughly a thousand dollars. That** 

### 21 **would be both for the -- a thousand dollars** 

### 22 **for the set, small and large.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 45**  **1 No instrumentation would be**  

### 2 **required compared to the existing test** 

### 3 **procedure. It's because all of the** 

### 4 **measurements are the same. It's just swapping** 

### 5 **out the aluminum test blocks for the stainless** 

### 6 **steel hybrid test blocks.** 

### 7 **The only additional time in the** 

### 8 **test procedure is for measuring the weights of** 

### 9 **two pieces for the test block as opposed to** 

### 10 **just one aluminum block and I would estimate** 

### 11 **that on the order of a minute.** 

### 12 **One potential burden is that** 

### 13 **manufacturers would be required to test the** 

### 14 **newly covered induction products and DOE** 

### 15 **estimates that this would cost manufacturers** 

### 16 **roughly $6,000.** 

### 17 **DOE doesn't expect that these** 

### 18 **costs or time requirements would represent a** 

### 19 **significant burden, even for small businesses.** 

### 20 **MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer.** 

### 21 **MS. CLEARY: I have some** 

### 22 **questions.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 46**  **1 MR. WATSON: Sure.**  

### 2 **MS. CLEARY: Can you elaborate a** 

### 3 **little bit on the source of like some of these** 

### 4 **cost numbers, including the cost for the** 

### 5 **additional testing that would be required for** 

### 6 **induction, as well as do these costs assume** 

### 7 **that each manufacturer would only be requiring** 

### 8 **one set of test blocks?** 

### 9 **MR. WATSON: Yes. So the thousand** 

### 10 **dollars for one set of test blocks, so I guess** 

### 11 **if a manufacturer or a test lab is buying** 

### 12 **multiple sets, it would just be a thousand** 

### 13 **times however many sets.** 

### 14 **But still that -- I can't imagine** 

### 15 **anybody buying a whole lot of test blocks.** 

### 16 **So, the order of magnitude there would still** 

### 17 **be in the thousands of dollars, not -- I** 

### 18 **wouldn't expect it to go anywhere above** 

### 19 **$10,000.** 

### 20 **And that's based on the estimates** 

### 21 **we received when we purchased these test** 

### 22 **blocks for our internal testing. The**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 47**  **1 stainless steel hybrid test blocks, I think**  

### 2 **they were on the same order of magnitude cost** 

### 3 **as all the other potential test blocks we** 

### 4 **investigated, so there's not really any cost** 

### 5 **advantage to one over the other.** 

### 6 **The $6,000 is a rough estimate** 

### 7 **based on a manufacturer having three induction** 

### 8 **cooking tops and I believe it was with four** 

### 9 **surface units that would have to be tested a** 

### 10 **number of times, and the estimate assumes a** 

### 11 **certain amount of labor for each of those** 

### 12 **tests.** 

### 13 **Off the top of my head, I'm -- I** 

### 14 **don't have the exact estimates, but I think** 

### 15 **the NOPR breaks it down even further.** 

### 16 **MS. CLEARY: Yes. I saw that** 

### 17 **description in the NOPR. This is Jennifer. I** 

### 18 **just was wondering like how you got the basis** 

### 19 **for those numbers.** 

### 20 **MR. WATSON: Sure.** 

### 21 **MS. CLEARY: So, not -- so like** 

### 22 **assuming the number of induction models that**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 48**  **1 each manufacturer would have, as well as the**  

### 2 **costs that would be associated with that** 

### 3 **testing, in terms of labor, like what was the** 

### 4 **source for those numbers.** 

### 5 **MR. WATSON: Yes. So for the** 

### 6 **labor costs, that was just based on our** 

### 7 **internal testing based on how long each test** 

### 8 **took us, pretty much.** 

### 9 **There's -- the test has certain** 

### 10 **time periods, so there's really no way to** 

### 11 **optimize it to decrease the cost, so it was** 

### 12 **pretty clear how long each one would take.** 

### 13 **And, as far as the labor cost, I** 

### 14 **don't know off the top of my head where that** 

### 15 **estimate was. I think it was just a ball park** 

### 16 **estimate of a lab technician rate.** 

### 17 **MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. This is** 

### 18 **Ashley. I was just going to say, typically,** 

### 19 **when we do that, we'll do an estimate of a** 

### 20 **survey of all the products out there, whittle** 

### 21 **it down to a number of basic models that would** 

### 22 **have to be tested and rated, the number of**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 49**  **1 times you would have to run a test on a given**  

### 2 **basic model, then we would, based on our** 

### 3 **testing, estimate the length of time, as Troy** 

### 4 **said, and then we'll apply some type of labor** 

### 5 **estimate for -- it's usually a weighted** 

### 6 **average between a tech and a supervisory** 

### 7 **engineer that would review those results.** 

### 8 **I don't know what the dollars per** 

### 9 **hour is, but that's roughly -- we just** 

### 10 **multiply it out that way.** 

### 11 **MS. CLEARY: Yes. I thank you.** 

### 12 **MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.** 

### 13 **MR. WATSON: Okay. And then the** 

### 14 **other requirement is that any amendments to** 

### 15 **the test procedure do not affect the** 

### 16 **compliance with existing standards.** 

### 17 **And, as Ashley pointed out earlier** 

### 18 **on, the only existing standard for** 

### 19 **conventional cooking products prohibits the** 

### 20 **use of a standing pilot light.** 

### 21 **So, swapping out the aluminum test** 

### 22 **blocks for stainless steel hybrid test blocks**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 50**  **1 wouldn't have any effect on a product's**  

### 2 **ability to be compliant with the existing** 

### 3 **standard.** 

### 4 **So, I think that takes us to the** 

### 5 **end. Any additional comments?** 

### 6 **MR. BROOKMAN: Any additional** 

### 7 **comments here as we move towards closure?** 

### 8 **Back to Ashley Armstrong.** 

### 9 **MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley.** 

### 10 **This is just how to submit written comments.** 

### 11 **A summary -- a reminder that the time period** 

### 12 **closes on April 15th and, if you have any** 

### 13 **questions in the meantime, feel free to submit** 

### 14 **them and let us know.** 

### 15 **There are the small details of the** 

### 16 **actual individual tests in the appendix as** 

### 17 **well as in the notice so, as you are going** 

### 18 **through those, since we didn't go through them** 

### 19 **today, if you have questions, just let us** 

### 20 **know.** 

### 21 **Thank you for coming.** 

### 22 **MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.**

### 202-234-4433 **Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 51**  **1 (Whereupon, the meeting was**  

### 2 **concluded at 9:51 a.m.)** 

### 3 **4 5**  **6 7**  **8 9**  **10 11**  **12 13**  **14 15**  **16 17**  **18 19**  **20 21**  **22**

### 202-234-4433 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 52 A ability 50:2 access 6:2 account 11:7 36:6,9

36:11 accounts 35:5 across-the-board

31:22 active 2:7 4:14 11:2 11:7,15 12:6 40:2 43:2 actual 50:16 adaptor21:13,15 add 10:10 39:15 added 36:22 addition40:1 additional 23:8

32:5,19 38:1 39:1 40:3 42:16 44:19 45:7 46:5 50:5,6 Additionally 9:7 address 20:19

23:11 addressed43:1,7 adjourn 2:13 5:2 advantage47:5 affect 37:17 49:15 agenda2:2,3 4:7

5:1,4,5 6:16,16 AHAM 26:17 air 37:16 allow7:19 9:15 10:18 12:12,16 allowed 36:19 alloy 13:14 16:5,12

20:22 23:14 aluminum 8:15 13:14 14:13,18 15:7 16:7,12,22 17:14 18:5,12,20 19:12,21 20:3,6 20:22 21:19 22:3 22:19 23:19 24:5 24:16 25:6,19 27:13 34:3 45:5 45:10 49:21 ambient 12:13 37:14 38:1 amend 10:8 11:7 17:12 43:14 amended 11:17

25:15 amendment 10:17

32:22 33:8 35:3 40:17 41:13 amendments 7:17

7:19 10:15 11:14 43:11,20 44:5 49:14 amount 35:15,22

36:16 47:11 anybody 14:1

32:16 46:15 apologies 5:19 6:1 appear20:5 appeared44:1 appears4:19 appendix7:6,17

9:14 11:1 12:9 14:10,17 25:15 30:12 50:16 Appliance 1:14,15 1:15 3:14,18 appliances 1:19

33:2 applied43:12 apply49:4 appreciate 29:8 approached 35:10 appropriate 14:8

38:10,11 40:15 41:2 April 6:22 50:12 Armstrong 1:12

4:1,1 6:5,6,13 8:3 31:10 39:5,8 48:17 49:12 50:8 50:9 Ashley 1:12 4:1 6:4

7:15 12:4 31:11 39:4,8 48:18 49:17 50:8,9 associated 26:13

48:2 Association 1:13 1:14 3:14 assume46:6 assumes 40:7 47:10 assuming47:22 as-is 25:20 audio 5:18 availability 9:12 available 5:21 9:5 Avenue 1:9 average49:6 avoid 32:20 aware 17:7 40:2 Awareness 1:15

3:18 a.m 1:9 3:2 51:2 B Back 50:8 background 7:4,9 ball48:15 Baltimore 3:11 base 16:11,16 18:3

20:21 21:3,5,11 23:3,9,14,18 27:19,21 28:1 29:14 34:1 based 10:6 12:11 13:6,9 33:10 40:5 41:13 46:20 47:7 48:6,7 49:2 baseline 15:6 18:14 bases 28:20 basic48:21 49:2 basically 37:17 basis 5:15 26:3

31:9,21 33:6 47:18 Battaglia 1:13 3:21

3:21 behavior 17:8

42:14 behaviors 17:7 believe 39:16 43:9

47:8 believes 9:13 best24:20 37:11 better 19:7 24:4,8 bit7:3,8 28:15

33:20 46:3 block 12:10,12,16 13:2,6,9,19,20,21 14:3 15:16 16:3,4 16:8 18:2,6,10 19:12 20:15 22:16 23:4,13 26:22 27:5 28:17 32:16 33:15 36:20 37:22 40:5,10,16,21 41:3,15,21 42:6 45:9,10 blocks 13:12,14 14:1,4,12,14,18 14:20 15:1,7 16:1 16:7,10,13,14,19 17:1,2,14,15,19 17:20 18:1,12,17 18:21 19:5,9,10 19:15,19,21 20:2 20:4,6,20 21:2,18 21:19,20,22 22:3 22:6,8,11,17,19 22:20,22 23:6,8 23:21 24:4,7,11 24:11,20 25:4,6,9 25:13,14,18,20,22 26:2,8,19 27:14 28:19 32:18,20 37:2,9,10 42:3,12 44:19 45:5,6 46:8 46:10,15,22 47:1 47:3 49:22,22 bodies 23:19 body 16:12 21:1

23:4,10 28:2 boil 35:1,16 boiled 36:12 boiling 34:21 35:10

36:3,4 37:18 bottom 18:2 boxes 11:10 break 30:15 breaks 47:15 BRIAN 1:19 brief4:6,8 6:16 Brookman 1:9,11

2:4 3:3,10,16 4:4 6:12 11:20 12:1 26:15 29:21 32:5 38:13 39:1,14,22 41:4 42:16 44:12 45:20 50:6,22 bubbling 35:11 Building 3:8 burden 26:12 38:3

38:11 45:12,19 burdensome44:17 businesses 45:19 buying46:11,15 C C 3:1 calculation 36:8 California 1:19 CALLIE 1:20 candidate 16:18 18:17 capacities 17:4 18:8 19:17 24:2 capacity 16:22 carbon 16:4,5,10 17:20 19:8,15,19 20:1 21:3,17,20 21:22 22:5,7,10 22:16,20 23:1,6 23:16,20,22 24:6 24:6,10 25:9 carefully 30:18 case 20:14 30:4

31:22 cases 30:20,22 cell 5:10 center 34:5 certain 8:13 43:2

47:11 48:9 CFR7:7 10:1,13

11:1 change 18:9 40:20 changed 17:9 changes44:4 chime 6:9

### 202-234-4433 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 53 chose 21:5 29:18

33:13 circle40:8 clear48:12 clearly 10:5 Cleary 1:13 3:13

3:13 26:15,16,16 27:1,8,11 28:4,8 28:11,14 29:9,19 41:5,5,8,14 45:21 46:2 47:16,21 49:11 close 34:16,21

39:10 closely 33:14 closes 6:22 50:12 closing 2:12 4:21 closure 50:7 coil 15:10 32:2 coming 6:11 35:12

50:21 comment5:15 6:21 11:10,11,13 26:6 31:5 38:5 40:22 44:7 comments 2:11

4:19 5:5 7:1 11:19,20 12:1 32:6 39:2 42:17 44:12 50:5,7,10 compared 24:10

37:9,22 45:2 comparing 26:4

30:6 comparison 15:7 18:16 36:19 37:3 compatible 13:16 14:14 24:18 complete 5:20 compliance 2:10

4:16 44:14 49:16 compliant50:2 concern 20:19

22:21 23:7,11 35:9 concerns 11:19

20:7 concluded 5:22 51:2 concluding44:15 condition 38:1 conditions 37:15

38:11 conduct29:7 44:17 conducted 14:7,11 18:12 19:1 32:9 42:22 confidence 25:1 conservation 9:17 consider7:16 8:19

38:9 42:2 consideration 5:7

44:10 considered 9:16

25:17 considering7:18 consistent26:3

29:17 40:16 Consulting 1:13,16

1:17 consumed 13:3 consumer7:6 17:6

42:14 consumers 32:13 consumption43:8 contains 10:1,13 11:2 CONTENTS 2:1 continue 12:20 controls 38:2 convened 1:8 conventional 1:3

3:6 7:10 10:2,9,10 10:14,19,21 11:1 11:14,16 15:5,9 18:13 24:17 25:7 25:20 26:10 43:3 43:6,12,15,18 49:19 conversations 5:11 converting 29:16 cook 8:10 20:13

27:2,4 30:2,7,15 30:20 cooking 1:3 3:6 7:10,20,21 8:2,5,6 8:7,9,12,19 9:5,12 9:17,21,21 10:2,6 10:9,10,17,20 11:1,15 12:7,10 12:13 13:3,17 14:9 15:5,9,11,12 17:6,8 18:13 20:8 20:10,16,17 21:12 25:10,19,20 26:2 26:8,10 31:7 32:14,17 33:2,10 33:13 36:10,15,17 42:14 43:3,6,10 43:13,15,16,18,18 44:2,3,8 47:8 49:19 cookingware 34:1 cookware 21:14

33:16 cooling 21:9 correspond 11:11 cost44:19 45:15

46:4,4 47:2,4 48:11,13 costs 45:18 46:6

48:2,6 couple 32:1 cover4:21 10:5,19 covered 2:6 4:13,22

26:9 43:19 45:14 covers 7:6 creates 8:7 curious 30:1,5 current 8:1,6,7,8 12:8 16:22 18:12 20:11 34:13 36:18 40:9 41:16 42:9 currently 25:21 custom 33:22 D D 3:1 data29:3 day4:17 decrease 24:9 48:11 defined 25:21 definition 10:1,6,9 10:13,15,18,18,22 11:2,7,16 26:10 43:14,17 definitions 11:14 degree 35:20 degrees 12:17

34:11,15 35:11 dehumidifiers 43:5 Department 1:1,8 1:12 3:5,8 described 20:21

36:14 40:4 describes 12:8 35:3 description 15:22

47:17 detail 6:10 28:12 detailed 30:13 details 50:15 determination

28:16 determine 14:8,22

40:15 determined 13:1,6

40:5 determining41:3 developed 36:7 deviation 24:22 deviations 18:21 diameter 12:11 13:10 17:21,21 33:11,19,21 40:6 diameters 13:19 16:21 17:3 33:15 42:9 difference 14:18

22:15 differences 36:4 different 13:9 18:7 18:10 22:2 24:15 26:22 27:2 37:4,4 39:13 42:3 differentials 39:13 difficult 35:19

39:20 dimension40:15 41:1 direct 36:19 37:3 directly4:12 discussed43:13 dishwashers43:4 disk 16:11 18:3

21:8 divided 13:2 36:16 document 11:12 DOE4:2 8:19 9:3

9:13,20 10:8,14 11:6,11,15 14:7 14:11 15:14 16:9 16:19,21 17:1,7 19:3 20:7,19 21:5 22:20 25:14,17 26:1,6,11 28:19 32:22 33:5,13,15 34:13 35:8,18 36:7 37:12,19 38:5,8 39:9 40:13 40:19,22 42:2,21 43:14,22 44:7,15 44:18 45:14,17 dollars 44:20,21

46:10,17 49:8 door5:13 Doug 1:9,11 2:4

3:10 6:15 draft 32:22 33:8

35:3 40:17 drop 22:14 26:1 D.C 1:9 E E 3:1,1 earlier42:10,21

43:13 49:17 Edison 1:19 Edition 33:1 effect50:1 effects 14:22 15:3 efficiencies 19:20 19:21 21:18 22:6 22:13 26:4 30:9 39:17

### 202-234-4433 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 54 efficiency 12:22 15:2,6 18:15 22:14 24:9 25:2,5 26:1 31:20 32:3 36:8,13 37:1 38:15,17 efficient 30:3,21

31:17 either 11:3 24:5

36:3 elaborate46:2 electric 10:4,11 11:4,8 13:11 15:10 30:3,6,21 33:2 40:6,7,11,14 41:2 encounters 8:8 energy 1:1,8,12 3:9

9:16 11:5 12:14 12:19,22 13:2,3,5 34:12 35:3 36:16 43:8 Energy's 3:5 engineer49:7 entire 35:4,13 EPCA 2:10 4:16

44:14 equipment26:14

29:14,15 37:4 error41:19,21 especially 37:9 establish 8:20 15:6 established 8:18 17:5 18:14 42:12 44:5 establishing 25:18 estimate45:10 47:6

47:10 48:15,16,19 49:3,5 estimates 44:18

45:15 46:20 47:14 evaporate 35:16 evaporated 36:11 exact 39:11,12

47:14 examination 27:12 exciting 14:3 existing 7:9 14:17 16:6 17:14 33:15 45:2 49:16,18 50:2 expect5:1 30:9

31:3,5 45:17 46:18 expected 6:17 F Fahrenheit 34:11

34:15 35:11 fairly 22:14 familiar 31:7 fan43:8 far48:13 features 44:1 Federal 31:13 feedback7:1 26:12 feel 6:7,9 12:3

50:13 ferromagnetic 8:13 13:15 14:14 16:6 16:17 20:12,15,22 21:4 23:15 field 8:1,5 final 8:18,19 17:5

35:2 42:1,13 43:7 43:12,20 44:6 find 19:4 35:19

38:15 finding 29:4 fine 8:3 first 16:3,10 18:11

21:2 five 15:15 19:1 22:4

22:12 flame 10:4 11:3 focus 5:9 followed 14:16 following4:6,11,15 17:15 food 8:10 forming 23:1 Forrestal 3:8 forward 6:22 found 9:4,20 12:8 19:19 20:1 four 15:20 25:5

47:8 free 6:8,9 12:3

50:13 further 19:4 47:15 future 9:16 G G 3:1 gas 10:4 11:3 13:11

15:11,19 40:21 41:15,22 GE 1:19 general 15:21

31:15 generally 31:17 getting7:1 give 17:16 given 9:11 21:22

49:1 gives 7:3,8 15:21 Glad 3:9 4:4 go 6:8 34:22 42:19

46:18 50:18 goal 14:21 19:4 goes 6:18 going4:11 6:8 7:5

12:5 39:10 48:18 50:17 good 3:3 38:17 grams 35:5 Great29:19 greet 6:7 guess 28:11 29:6

30:19 46:10 guessing 31:12 guys 26:18 29:3

41:8 H half25:8 hard 22:14 head 38:21 47:13

48:14 heat 8:7,9 10:11 11:3 16:22 17:4 18:8 19:17 23:3,8 24:1 27:12,22 32:16 36:14 heated 34:10 heating7:20 9:6,10 10:4,11 11:4,9 21:9 29:13 32:10 32:12,18 34:20 36:22 37:8,13,20 37:22 38:6,7,9,12 38:18 39:19 40:18 43:16 heats 34:14 heat-up 34:9 35:6

35:15 heavy 36:3 height 19:15 heights 17:2 18:7 high 32:2 higher22:7,13

31:20 34:18,22 37:1 highlight 6:21 history 2:5 4:12

8:17 Hobs 33:3 hole 34:5 home 1:13,14 3:14

32:17 hour49:9 household 33:2 humidity 37:16 hybrid 16:9,14 17:13 18:1,2 20:20 21:17 22:5 22:17 23:7,13,20 24:4,6,10,11,20 25:4,9,13,22 26:7 27:14 28:19 37:10 38:16 42:3 45:6 47:1 49:22 I IEC 29:14 33:1,8

33:22 35:2 40:17 41:13 ignore 8:2 imagine46:14 Immediately 4:6 impact26:19 42:7 improve 38:2 improvement

37:21 inch 21:6,11,16

28:21 inches 13:19,20 19:13,13 29:15,16 33:21 include43:15 included 15:4,10 15:12 24:17 33:17 including 9:14 46:4 inclusion44:3 inconsistent23:2 incorporating 14:9 increase 12:17 13:7 increased 9:11

39:19 Independence 1:9 indicating 17:8 individual 50:16 induce 8:1,6 induces 20:11 induction7:20,21

8:4,12,19 9:6,10 9:12,21 10:5,20 13:16 14:9,15 15:12 20:8,10,17 21:12 22:4 24:18 25:19 30:2,8,20 31:7,16,19 32:3 43:15,16,18 44:2 44:3,8,8 45:14 46:6 47:7,22 inductive 10:11 11:8 inefficiencies 22:9 information 5:13 14:5 17:8 29:3,8 input 12:15,20

34:12 instrumentation

45:1 interested 26:11

38:8

### 202-234-4433 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 55 intermediate42:4 internal46:22 48:7 interval 25:1 introduce 32:18 introductions 3:12 investigated 16:1 16:19 47:4 investigating 27:22 investigation 28:2

28:6 investigative 14:7

27:16,18 32:10,21 33:7,12 invites 44:7 inviting40:22 iron 8:14 issues 2:11 4:19,22 11:11 35:9 ITEM 2:2 J James 1:13,19 3:21 Jen41:5 Jennifer 1:13 3:13

26:15,16 41:4 45:20 47:17 Joanna 1:15 3:17

29:21,22 38:13,14 joining 5:16 Judith 1:16 3:19 jump 12:3,6 justification 17:17 K keep 5:9 key 37:6 kind 12:5 30:6,8

31:18 38:19 39:13 know28:15 30:4

31:18 32:15 38:21 41:15 42:4 48:14 49:8 50:14,20 L lab 46:11 48:16 labor47:11 48:3,6

48:13 49:4 labs 38:4 large 13:20 17:20 20:15 22:14 33:20 41:17,21 44:22 larger 13:12 40:20

42:5 layer 20:11 lead 23:2 36:3 leaving 25:19 left 3:12 17:19 legislative 7:4 8:16 length49:3 let's 3:11,12 6:12 LEYBOURN 1:14 lid 34:2,5 light49:20 limit5:10 limitation40:3 limited 31:19 37:13 listen 6:2 little 7:3,8 28:11,15

33:20 46:3 long48:7,12 longer 35:14 look 6:22 27:3

30:19 31:11 37:6 38:22 39:9 looked 30:18 31:9 looking 25:10 looks 31:19 41:17 lot 35:1 37:7 46:15 low 32:4 34:10 lower 12:21 19:22

24:13 25:6,9 lowest25:5 M magnetic 8:1,5 magnitude46:16

47:2 main 35:9 maintain 18:8 19:16 35:20 42:11 42:11 maintained 16:20 16:21 17:4,9 23:17 34:15 manufacturer46:7 46:11 47:7 48:1 manufacturers 1:14,15 3:15 9:8 38:4 45:13,15 March 1:6 3:7 market9:1,3,5,9,13 match 33:14 material 13:15

20:12,15,22 21:4 materials 5:14 8:13

8:14 18:10 Mauer 1:15 3:17

3:17 29:22,22 30:17 31:2 38:14 38:14 42:1,15 maximum 12:14,19

34:12 McGONAGLE 1:19 mean 25:1 26:21

31:15,20 32:3 39:16 measured 38:16,17 measurements

45:4 measures 34:6 measuring 33:3

45:8 medium 32:12 meeting 1:3,8 3:5

4:10 5:21,22 6:7 51:1 mentioned 7:15 13:8 32:9 41:17 metal 14:3 32:16

32:20 method 14:8,17

33:3 34:8 38:10 metric 29:16 35:2

36:14,18 MICHAEL 1:19 microwave 11:4 minute45:11 minutes 12:21

34:19 35:14 mode 2:7,8 4:14,15

5:10 11:2,7,15 12:7 40:2 42:20 43:1,2,3,8,8,9 44:1,10 model 31:21 49:2 models 47:22 48:21 model-by-model

39:11 moderator 1:9,12 Monday 1:5 3:7 morning 3:3,9 4:5

4:18 5:2,18 MOUW 1:20 move4:12 50:7 moved 20:20 23:12 moving 19:8 22:15

26:21 42:19 multiple 27:6 31:14

46:12 multiply49:10 N N 3:1 name 3:10 5:8 NATHAN 1:20 Navigant 1:13,16 1:17,20 3:20,22 4:3 7:15 needed 38:2 new 8:22 26:13

44:19 newly45:14 nine 13:19 33:20 nine-inch 16:20 noncircular40:11

41:9,11 non-ferromagnetic

21:14 NOPR 11:12 28:18

40:13 41:18 47:15 47:17 note 8:11 9:19 10:16 15:18 21:10 29:10 noted 21:15 29:14 notes 11:16 40:19

43:22 notice 31:13 50:17 number26:19,22 35:8 39:11 47:10 47:22 48:21,22 numbers 27:2 46:4

47:19 48:4 O O 3:1 observe 27:20

43:22 observed 22:22

23:5 24:4 35:8,18 October43:7,11,20

44:6 offer 9:9 Oh 21:10 30:10 okay 7:14 8:4,16 12:2 27:8 28:4,10 28:14 29:9,19 32:4,8 39:14,22 41:14 42:15,18 44:13 49:13 one-fourth 12:19 opening 2:3 4:9 operate 20:9 operation43:9 opportunity4:7,20 opposed 23:7 45:9 optimize48:11 order45:11 46:16

47:2 oscillating 7:22 8:5 outer 16:21 33:21 outset4:8 11:21 oven 10:21 ovens 9:22 43:10 overall 15:2 16:22 19:17 overview 6:19 P P 3:1 packet5:12,14

30:13 PAGE 2:2 pan 20:12 21:6

28:22 29:5 parameters 17:6,9

### 202-234-4433 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 56 park48:15 part9:16 10:16 16:1 33:3 participants 6:1 particular 28:6 percent9:4,9 18:22

24:22 25:6,8 percentage 24:13 performance 33:4 period 6:21 13:7

34:9,18 35:4,7,15 37:5 50:11 periods 21:9 48:10 phones 5:10 photo 17:22 photos 17:18 piece 16:8 pieces 45:9 pilot7:11 49:20 place 17:14 31:6

38:3 plate 21:13,16 Please 5:7,8 point 12:4,18 13:18 18:16 34:21 pointed 30:11

49:17 points 24:13 portion 5:18 9:1

28:17 possible 19:7 34:17 pot20:12 21:6

28:22 29:5 33:19 34:1,7 potential 14:12,19 15:22 16:3 26:12 45:12 47:3 predictor 38:17 PRESENT 1:10,18 presentation 5:15

29:12 30:12 presiding 1:9 pressure 37:16 pretty 6:9 12:5,9

29:17 32:2,4 41:12 42:19 48:8 48:12 prevent21:8 29:1 previously 19:11

40:4 Prior27:17 procedure 2:7,9

4:14,16 6:20 7:4 7:12 8:20 12:8 14:2 17:13 25:16 29:11 31:6 34:13 36:18 37:20 40:3 40:9 41:16 42:20 43:20 45:3,8 49:15 procedures 1:3 3:6

7:17 8:17 9:14 14:10 43:2 44:16 process 6:20 produced 18:21

20:2 21:18 24:12 25:13 product7:22 10:3 10:12 products 1:3 2:6

3:6 4:13 7:7,10,20 8:22 9:9,12,15,18 10:19 11:8 12:7 24:16 26:5 43:4,6 43:13,19 44:4,9 45:14 48:20 49:19 product's 50:1 prohibit7:10 prohibits 49:19 Project 1:16 3:18 proper 35:19 40:5

40:10 proposal 7:2 17:17

26:7 41:12,13 42:11 proposed 10:17 11:13 26:9 43:17 44:16 proposing 10:8,15 11:6 17:12 25:15 26:1 37:19 38:7 40:13,19 43:14 provide 32:12 provides 19:9 provisions 43:3 public 1:3,8,11 3:5

3:11 6:7 purchased46:21 purpose7:16 34:20 put5:10 Q quantities 33:14 quantity 33:9 quarter 13:20

16:20 21:6,11,16 28:20 quarter-inch 23:18

27:21 question 28:15

38:15 42:1 questions 5:5 6:10

27:9 32:6 41:6 45:22 50:13,19 quick 39:9 42:19 quickly 6:9 12:5 R R 3:1 range 10:14,19

11:17 39:18 rank 39:21 ranking 38:19 rate 12:20 34:12

48:16 rated48:22 ratio 13:1 reach 12:13 real 20:18 really 31:4 32:15

37:3 47:4 48:10 real-world 20:9 reason 17:3 32:11 reasonable 20:5 received 5:12 46:21 receiving 26:12 record 5:8 reduce 12:18 refer 30:14 reference 18:6 reflect 17:6 20:8

30:9 42:13 reflects 5:1 regard41:15 regarding 11:13

22:21 29:11 Register 31:13 regulatory 2:5 4:12 Reich 1:16 3:19,19 REIS 1:20 related 22:9 43:10 relative 30:8 38:19

39:12 relatively 8:22 relied 32:22 rely 33:5 39:20 remarks 2:3,12 4:8

4:9,21 6:4 reminder 50:11 repeatability 15:2

18:15,20 19:6 20:3 22:18,21 24:5,8,21 37:7,11 37:21 38:3 repeatable 25:14 repeated 15:15,19 replace 14:13 represent21:6

28:21 45:18 representative

20:16 32:13 request 11:10 requested 11:11 requesting 11:13 requests 38:5 require44:9 required 35:4 45:2

45:13 46:5 requirement26:13

40:20 49:14 requirements 2:10

4:17 44:14 45:18 requiring46:7 resistance 8:8 10:4

11:4 30:3,7,21 resistant23:15 response 11:22

32:7 39:3 result 19:5 resulted 19:20 22:6 36:13 results 19:18 24:12

24:15 25:14 26:20 30:6,13 31:8,21 36:20 37:1 42:7 49:7 review2:3 4:7 49:7 right 6:15 7:11

17:22 18:5 31:11 rise 36:9 Room 1:8 rough47:6 roughly 9:4 21:16

44:20 45:16 49:9 rule 8:18,19 17:5

42:13 43:7,12,21 44:6 rulemaking 6:20

7:5,16 9:17 10:16 11:18 14:6 42:22 run49:1 running 28:3 rust23:1,15 rusting 23:11 S S 3:1 sample 15:4,12 18:14 21:12 24:17 25:7 31:20 41:11 saw47:16 says41:17,20 section7:7 44:14 see 6:18 13:13 18:2 18:7,19 19:14 23:17 24:19 25:3 27:17 28:18 31:18 33:18 34:4 35:12 37:1,7 44:18 seeks 26:6 seen 32:15 select 12:9 separate42:22

44:9 set 18:11 19:1 21:2

24:17 25:18 28:19

### 202-234-4433 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 57 44:22 46:8,10 sets 46:12,13 setting 12:15,19,21

35:19 36:1 shipped 21:13 show 37:21 showed 8:17 10:6

22:12,13 26:1 showing 31:16,20 shown 10:2 19:11 shows 13:22 17:22

24:14 33:22 sidebar 5:11 significant9:1

35:15 45:19 significantly 19:22

22:2 silent5:10 similar 10:22 16:6 16:15 19:6,20 20:3 21:19,21 22:19 24:1 34:12 36:17 39:12 similarly 11:6 simmering 34:17

35:7,20 situations 20:9 six 13:20 16:20

22:4,12,13 six-inch 33:19 size40:5,11,16 41:3

41:21 42:4,6 sizes 13:9 26:22

42:3 slide 8:17 10:7 12:7 13:22 15:21 24:14 25:8 31:11 32:9 36:21 slides 17:15 39:9

42:10 slight24:9 slightly 18:7 19:14 19:22 small 17:21 33:18

34:4 41:19 44:22 45:19 50:15 smaller 13:21 14:4 19:16 smallest40:14 41:1 smooth 15:10 solid 16:7 22:10,16

23:5 Solutions 1:11 3:11 sorry 27:5,8 source 10:12 11:3

46:3 48:4 sources 32:19 Southern 1:19 speak 5:7,9 specifically 7:18 specification 33:16 specifications 19:10,12 specifies 10:3 11:3

33:9 specify40:10 stainless 16:13,14 16:15,16 17:13 18:1,4 23:12,13 24:1,3,11,19 25:4 25:12,22 26:7 27:13 28:17 34:2 37:10 38:16 45:5 47:1 49:22 standard 18:21

24:21 33:1 40:17 49:18 50:3 standardized 33:10 standards 1:15

3:18 7:9 9:17 49:16 standby 2:8 4:15

42:20 43:1,1,7 44:1,10 standing7:11

49:20 start 3:11,12 starts 34:9 statement28:18 steel 8:14 16:4,5,10 16:13,14,16,16 17:13,20 18:1,4 19:8,15,19 20:2 21:3,17,20,22 22:5,7,10,16,20 23:1,6,7,12,14,16 23:20,22 24:1,4,6 24:6,10,11,20 25:4,9,12,22 26:7 27:13 28:17,20 34:2 37:10 38:16 45:6 47:1 49:22 STEVE 1:14 stringent 37:14 studied 30:17 studies 29:7 study 27:14 submit50:10,13 substitute 14:12,13 14:19,22 15:22 17:19 19:5 20:6 substitutes 15:8 sufficiently 4:22 suggests 22:8 summary4:8 17:16

24:14 36:21 50:11 supervisory49:6 support 14:6 34:6 supposed42:13 Sure 27:10 41:7

46:1 47:20 surface 12:10,11,14 12:18 13:1,10,11 15:16,19 18:22 19:2 22:5 23:9 27:5,7 33:11 35:22 39:17 40:6 40:7,11,14,21 41:2,12 47:9 surfaces 27:15 survey 9:20 48:20 surveyed 9:3 swapped 14:19 swapping45:4

49:21 switching 32:17 S.W 1:9 T table 2:1 31:13

33:17 tables 31:14 38:22 41:18 take 6:17 36:8

48:12 takes 50:4 talk 29:12 talked 28:15 talking 7:5 tech49:6 technician48:16 technologies 14:15 technology43:16 telephone 5:17 temperature 12:13 12:17 13:7 34:7 34:10,16,16,18 35:20 36:2,9 37:16 38:1 ten 9:4 tentatively 44:15 terms 22:18 24:21

27:22 38:18 48:3 test 1:3 2:7,9 3:5

4:14,16 6:20 7:4 7:12,17 8:17,20 9:14 12:8,9,12,16 12:20 13:4,6,7,9 13:12,14,19,21,22 14:2,4,10,12,13 14:19,22 15:4,7 15:11,15,15,22 16:4,7,9,13,14,18 17:1,2,12,14,15 17:19 18:1,6,12 18:17,20,20,21 19:5,6,9,10,12,15 19:18,19,21 20:2 20:4,6,20 21:2,12 21:17,19,20,22 22:1,1,3,6,7,10,16 22:17,19,20,22 23:3,6,8,13,20 24:4,6,10,11,20 25:4,6,9,13,16,18 25:20,22 26:2,8 26:14,19 27:4,5,6 28:19 29:11,14 30:7 31:6 32:20 33:15 34:13 35:4 35:13,17 36:12,18 36:20 37:2,4,5,8,9 37:10,13,15,18,20 37:22 38:4,6,8,10 38:11,16,18 40:3 40:5,9,10,16,18 40:20 41:3,11,15 41:16 42:3,6,7,9 42:12,20 43:2,19 44:16,19 45:2,5,6 45:8,9,13 46:8,10 46:11,15,21 47:1 47:3 48:7,9 49:1 49:15,21,22 tested 15:17 16:9 18:17 19:1 22:5 23:12 24:16 25:11 30:16 32:2 33:9 47:9 48:22 testing 7:19 12:7 14:7,11,16,21 15:14 16:2,19 17:10,16 19:3,4 20:20 22:10 23:1 24:3,15 26:8,18 27:17,18,19 32:22 33:7,13 35:9,21 40:2 41:9,22 42:5 42:8 44:11 46:5 46:22 48:3,7 49:3 tests 15:19 18:11 19:1,6 28:3 29:13 32:10 36:22 37:5 38:9,12 39:20 47:12 50:16 test-to-test 15:1

20:2 36:2,5,7 thank 3:16 29:9,19

39:14 42:15 49:11 50:21,22 Thanks 6:11 thermocouple 34:6 thick 21:7,16 29:1

29:15 thickness 21:5,7,15

### 202-234-4433 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. Page 58 23:18 28:16,20,22 29:4,17 thin 16:11 18:3

20:11,21 21:8 28:21 thing 6:14 8:11

9:19 13:18 15:18 21:10 29:10 37:6 think 6:17 47:1,14

48:15 50:4 thinking 28:6 thinks 37:12 thinner27:19 third-party 38:4 thousand44:20,21

46:9,12 thousands46:17 three 9:7 15:4,9,12 18:13,22 19:13,13 47:7 tied 38:12 tightness 24:22 till 6:18 time 5:7,8 8:21 9:2

27:6,7 35:6 37:19 38:7 45:7,18 48:10 49:3 50:11 times 15:15,20

46:13 47:10 49:1 today 3:7 4:10 5:13

6:7 7:6 50:19 tolerances 37:14,15 top 10:2,10,17,20 11:1,15 12:10,13 13:3 15:10,11,11 16:12 20:10,16 27:2,4 30:15 32:17 36:17 38:20 43:15,18 47:13 48:14 tops 8:20 9:5,21 13:17 14:9 15:5 15:10,13 18:13 20:8,17 21:12 25:10,21 26:2,9 26:10 30:2,7,20 31:7 32:14 43:10 44:2 47:8 total 13:6 35:4 36:9

36:14,16 37:4 transcript5:21 6:3 transfer 23:3,9

27:12 28:1 transferred 13:2,5

36:15 trend 31:15,18 trends 39:12 Troy 1:17 4:3 7:13

7:14 49:3 try 36:6 trying 39:5 turn 12:14 two 13:12 17:20

25:8 27:15 28:1 45:9 type 15:16 28:5

30:15 41:9 49:4 types 8:14 24:15

26:4 typical 21:6 28:22

29:4 typically 20:10

30:2 48:18 U understanding

30:1 unduly44:17 unfamiliar 14:1 unique44:2 unit 12:10,14,18 13:1 15:16,19 18:22 19:2 27:6 33:11 35:22 39:18 40:7 41:2 units 13:11,11 22:5

27:7 32:1 38:19 39:21 40:12,21 41:9,11,12 47:9 unit's 12:11 13:10

40:6,14 unit-by-unit 31:9 up-front 17:12 use7:11,20 9:10 10:3,19 11:8 13:11 17:13 25:15 26:2,7 32:13 38:7 41:17 49:20 uses 7:22 8:5 usually49:5 U.S 1:1,8 3:4 V values 25:5 vapor 35:12 variability 32:19

37:12 39:19 variation 22:1 37:8 variations 36:2,7 varying 17:1 vessel 8:2,6,7,9

33:10 36:10,15 vessels 33:13 W walls 34:1 want6:10 30:14

34:22 warping21:8 27:15

27:17,20 29:1 warrant9:13 44:4 Washington 1:9 water29:13 32:10

32:11,18 33:9,14 33:17 34:7,9,14 35:1,5,10,16,22 36:10,11,15,22 37:8,13,17,20 38:6,7,9,12,18 39:19 40:18 Watson 1:17 4:3,3

7:14,14 8:4 12:3 26:21 27:3,10,16 28:5,10,13 29:6 29:10 30:10 31:1 31:4 32:8 38:20 39:4,7,15 40:1 41:7,10,20 42:8 42:18 44:13 46:1 46:9 47:20 48:5 49:13 way26:3 48:10 49:10 webinar 1:18 5:17

5:19 6:1 week 5:22 weighted49:5 weights45:8 welcome 2:3 3:4 Welcoming 6:4 went6:15 23:2

27:21 we'll 6:18 12:6

48:19 49:4 we're4:11 6:8 7:5

7:18 12:5 40:2 whittle48:20 wide 36:1 wish4:9 wishes4:20 wondering28:8

29:2 47:18 word 33:6 word-for 33:5 working 5:18 6:14 works 8:12 world 20:18 wouldn't44:4,16

46:18 50:1 written 5:4 50:10 $ $10,00046:19 $6,00045:16 47:6 0 089 1:8 1 1.0 33:1 1000 1:8 35:5 1018 16:5,11 21:3

23:16 11:15 5:3 6:18 12 2:7 144 12:17 15 12:20 15th 6:22 50:12 194 34:10,14 35:11

35:20 1978 8:18 17:5 42:13 2 2 33:3 2.5 24:12 20 34:18 35:14 20-minute 35:6 201243:7,12,20

44:6 2013 1:6 3:7 24 29:15 3 3 2:4 4 4 1:6 4th 3:7 42 2:9 430 16:16,16 18:4

23:14 24:1 44 2:10 5 50 2:12 51 2:13 54 31:11 39:9 55 39:9 6 6 2:5 6035040:17 60350-2 33:1 6061 13:15 7 7 2:6 8 8E 1:8 84 9:8 9 9:00 1:9 9:04 3:2 9:51 51:2 95 24:22NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript

In the matter of:

Before:

Date:

Place:

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under my direction; further, that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings.

----------------------- Court Reporter 59

Conventional Cooking Products

US DOE

03-04-13

Washington, DC