Vol. 79 Wednesday, 

No. 232 December 3, 2014 

Part III 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Conventional Cooking 

Products; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71894 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0013] 

RIN 1904–AC71 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Conventional Cooking 

Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking and corrections. 

SUMMARY: On January 18, 2013, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to revise its test procedures for cooking 

products established under the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act. The NOPR 

proposed a change to the test equipment 

that would allow for measuring the 

energy efficiency of induction cooking 

tops and ranges. To address issues 

raised in comments regarding the 

NOPR, DOE conducted additional 

research and analysis. In this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR), DOE modifies its 

proposal to change the test equipment to 

allow for measuring the energy 

efficiency of induction cooking tops and 

proposes to add an additional test block 

size for electric surface units with large 

diameters (both induction and electric 

resistance). In addition, DOE proposes 

methods to test non-circular electric 

surface units, electric surface units with 

flexible concentric cooking zones, and 

full-surface induction cooking tops. In 

this SNOPR, DOE also proposes 

amendments to add a larger test block 

size to test gas surface units with higher 

input rates. DOE also proposes to 

incorporate methods for measuring 

conventional oven volume, to clarify 

that the existing oven test block must be 

used to test all ovens regardless of input 

rate, and to measure the energy 

consumption and efficiency of 

conventional ovens equipped with an 

oven separator. Additionally, DOE is 

proposing technical corrections to the 

units of measurement in certain 

calculations and the annual useful 

cooking energy output for gas cooktops. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this NOPR no 

later than February 2, 2015. See section 

V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the SNOPR for Test 

Procedures for conventional cooking 

products, and provide docket number 

EERE–2012–BT–TP–0013 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

1904–AC71. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: Induction-Cooking-Prod2012-TP-0013@ee.doe.gov. Include the 

docket number and/or RIN in the 

subject line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR+

PS;rpp=50;so=DESC;sb=posted

Date;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 or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or by email: Brenda.

Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email: 

ashley.armstrong@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 202–287–6122. Email: 

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

B. Test Procedures for Cooking Products 

C. The January 2013 NOPR 

D. The February 2014 RFI 

II. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and Corrections 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by This Test 

Procedure Rulemaking 

1. Induction Cooking Products 

2. Gas Cooking Products With High Input 

Rates 

B. Effective Date 

C. Conventional Cooking Top Active Mode 

Test Procedure 

1. Test Block Construction 

2. Water-Heating Test Method 

3. Test Block Sizes 

4. Non-Circular and Flexible Surface Units 

5. Improved Heat Transfer Within the 

Hybrid Test Block 

6. Expected Cooking Top Performance 

7. Clarification of the Reduced Energy 

Input Setting 

D. Gas Cooking Products With High Input 

Rates 

1. Surface Units With Input Rates Greater 

Than 14,000 Btu/h 

2. Gas Ovens With Input Rates Greater 

Than 22,500 Btu/h 

E. Incorporating by Reference AHAM–OV– 

1–2011 for Determination of the Volume 

of Conventional Ovens 

F. Conventional Oven Separator 

G. Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure 

H. Technical Corrections to the Calculation 

of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

I. Headings for Conventional Cooking Top 

Calculations 

J. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71895 

1For more information on the EnergyGuide 

labeling program, see: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/

cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr305_00.html. 

2The term surface unit refers to burners for gas 

cooking tops, electric resistance heating elements 

for electric cooking tops, and inductive heating 

elements for induction cooking tops. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

1. Hybrid Test Blocks 

2. Typical Cookware Thickness 

3. Additional Test Block Size for Electric 

Resistance and Induction Surface Units 

4. Non-Circular and Flexible Electric 

Surface Units 

5. Thermal grease characteristics 

6. Clarification of the Reduced Energy 

Input Setting 

7. Gas Cooking Top Surface Units with 

Input Rates >14,000 Btu/h 

8. Gas Ovens with High Input Rates 

9. Test Method to Measure Oven Cavity 

Volume 

10. Test Method for Conventional Ovens 

with an Oven Separator 

11. Technical Corrections 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (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 American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical 

Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 

112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012).) 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, as codified), establishes the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ These include residential 

kitchen ranges and ovens, the subject of 

this SNOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

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 as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE 

that their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of those products. Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with any relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. 

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

EPCA 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 on them. (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)) 

B. Test Procedures for Cooking Products 

DOE’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) part 

430 (Appendix I). 

DOE established the test procedures 

in a final rule published in the Federal 

Register on 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 selfcleaning oven cycles per year; and (3) 

incorporation of portions of 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) Standard 705–1988, 

‘‘Methods for measuring the 

performance of microwave ovens for 

household and similar purposes,’’ and 

Amendment 2–1993 for the testing of 

microwave ovens. 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 labeling program for 

cooking products. 

DOE subsequently conducted a 

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, 

hereinafter referred to as the October 

2012 Final Rule), adopting standby and 

off mode provisions that satisfy the 

EPCA requirement that DOE 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)) 

C. The January 2013 NOPR 

On January 30, 2013, DOE published 

a NOPR (78 FR 6232, hereinafter 

referred to as the January 2013 NOPR) 

proposing amendments to Appendix I 

that would allow for testing the active 

mode energy consumption of induction 

cooking products; i.e., conventional 

cooking tops and ranges equipped with 

induction heating technology for one or 

more surface units 2 on the cooking top. 

DOE proposed to incorporate induction 

cooking tops by amending the definition 

of ‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to 

include induction heating technology. 

Furthermore, DOE proposed to require 

for all cooking tops the use of test 

equipment compatible with induction 

technology. Specifically, DOE proposed 

to replace the solid aluminum test 

blocks 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. In the January 

2013 NOPR, DOE also proposed 

amendments to include a clarification 

that the test block size be determined 

using the smallest dimension of the 

electric surface unit. 78 FR 6232, 6234 

(Jan. 30, 2013). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71896 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3 DOE considered commercial-style gas cooking 

tops to be those products that incorporate cooking 

tops with higher input rate burners (i.e., one or 

more burners greater than 14,000 Btu/h) and heavyduty grates that provide faster cooking and the 

ability to cook larger quantities of food in larger 

cooking vessels. DOE also stated that the burners 

are optimized for the larger-scale cookware to 

maintain high cooking performance. Similarly, DOE 

considered commercial-style gas ovens to have 

higher input rates (i.e., greater than 22,500 Btu/h). 

4 In support of the investigative testing performed 

for the discussion in section III.C.5, DOE tested two 

types of thermal grease, each having different 

thermal conductivities according to manufacturer 

published data at or above 1.73 Btu/hr-ft-°F. 

Efficiencies obtained with either type of thermal 

grease for an induction cooktop fell within the 

expected and observed test-to-test variation as 

discussed in sections III.C.1 and III.C.2. 

D. The February 2014 RFI 

On February 12, 2014, DOE published 

a request for information (RFI) (79 FR 

8337, hereinafter referred to as the 

February 2014 RFI) to initiate an effort 

to determine whether to amend the 

current energy conservation standards 

for conventional cooking products. As 

part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE 

stated that it tentatively plans to 

consider energy conservation standards 

for all consumer conventional cooking 

products, including commercial-style 

gas cooking products 3 and standard gas 

cooking products that have burners with 

higher input rates. These products were 

not included in the analysis underlying 

the previous standards rulemaking due 

to a lack of data upon which to 

determine the measurement of energy 

efficiency for these products. 79 FR 

8337, 8341 (Feb. 12, 2014); 74 FR 16040, 

16054 (Apr. 8, 2009). Because DOE is 

tentatively planning to consider energy 

conservation standards for all gas 

cooking products, including those with 

high input rate cooking tops and ovens, 

DOE is also considering amending the 

cooking products test procedure in 

Appendix I to include methods for 

measuring the energy consumption of 

these products as part of the SNOPR. 

II. Summary of the Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Corrections 

Based on review of the public 

comments received in response to the 

January 2013 NOPR and the potential 

for considering additional product types 

in future energy conservation standards 

rulemakings for conventional cooking 

products as discussed in the February 

2014 RFI, DOE conducted further 

analysis in support of the proposals 

discussed in this SNOPR. 

DOE continues to propose a hybrid 

test block comprising a stainless steel 

base and aluminum body for 

conventional cooking top testing, 

including conventional cooking tops 

with induction heating technology. 

Further testing conducted by DOE at 

multiple test laboratories indicated that 

this test block type produces repeatable 

and reproducible results. For 

comparison, DOE also conducted 

additional water-heating tests at 

multiple test laboratories, but found the 

results to be less repeatable and 

reproducible than the hybrid blockheating tests, consistent with the results 

discussed in the January 2013 NOPR. 78 

FR 6232, 6240–41 (Jan. 30, 2013). DOE’s 

testing, however, showed that adding a 

layer of thermal grease improves the 

thermal contact between the base and 

body of the test block and results in 

thermal behavior of the test block that 

is more representative of real-world 

cooking vessels. Therefore, in this 

SNOPR, DOE proposes to require the 

application of thermal grease between 

the stainless steel base and aluminum 

body to improve thermal contact 

between the two parts. The proposed 

thermal grease would be required to 

have a thermal conductivity of at least 

1.73 British thermal units per hour per 

foot per degree Fahrenheit (Btu/hr-ft-°F) 

(1.0 watts per meter per degree Kelvin 

(W/m-K)).4

In its additional investigative testing, 

DOE determined that the existing test 

block diameters, 6.25 inches and 9 

inches, may not be appropriate for 

testing conventional electric cooking top 

surface units with large diameters. For 

large-diameter electric surface units, the 

9-inch test block typically results in 

lower measured efficiencies when 

compared to a larger test block with a 

diameter that may more accurately 

reflect consumer use. To address this 

issue, DOE proposes a 10.5-inch 

diameter hybrid test block for testing 

electric cooking top surface units with 

diameters of at least 10 inches. 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that test block selection for 

non-circular electric cooking top surface 

units be based on the surface unit’s 

shortest dimension. 78 FR 6232, 6241 

(Jan. 30, 2013). Based on stakeholder 

feedback and a review of the market, 

DOE has revised its proposal to address 

the different types of units available on 

the market. In the SNOPR, DOE 

proposes that for electric cooking tops: 

(1) Test blocks for non-circular surface 

units be selected based on the surface 

unit’s shortest dimension; (2) surface 

units with flexible concentric sizes (i.e., 

units with multiple zones of the same 

shape but varying shortest dimensions) 

shall be tested at each unique size 

setting; and (3) full-surface induction 

cooking tops with ‘‘cook anywhere’’ 

functionality be tested with all three test 

block sizes in the center of the usable 

cooking surface. DOE also clarifies in 

the SNOPR that for all cooking tops, 

specialty surface units such as bridge 

zones, warming plates, grills, and 

griddles, are not covered by Appendix 

I. 

DOE also proposes a clarification to 

the cooking top test procedure in 

Appendix I to specify that the maximum 

energy input rate, as referenced in 

section 3.1.2 of Appendix I, shall be the 

average energy input rate determined 

over the duration of the test period at 

the maximum setting. The average 

energy input rate determined over the 

duration of the test period at the 

reduced setting shall be 25 ± 5 percent 

of the maximum energy input rate. 

Additionally, DOE is proposing 

amendments that would allow for 

testing the active mode energy 

consumption of gas cooking tops with 

higher surface unit input rates. Based on 

investigative testing of these cooking 

tops using a range of test block sizes to 

represent larger food loads and 

cookware diameters, DOE proposes that 

all gas surface units rated above 14,000 

Btu/h be tested using a 10.5-inch hybrid 

test block. For gas ovens, investigative 

testing of larger oven test blocks for use 

in ovens with higher input rates did not 

suggest that the oven test block size 

should be modified. Thus, DOE 

proposes that the existing oven test 

block be used to test all ovens, 

including ovens having input rates 

greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 

As discussed in the February 2014 

RFI, DOE is considering amending the 

standards for conventional cooking 

products. As part of any amended 

standards for conventional ovens, DOE 

may propose standards as a function of 

oven cavity volume. Because Appendix 

I does not currently contain a measure 

of conventional oven volume, DOE 

considered methodology for 

determining this value. Based on DOE’s 

review of the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 

Standard OV–1–2011 ‘‘Procedures for 

the Determination and Expression of the 

Volume of Household Microwave and 

Conventional Ovens’’ (AHAM–OV–1– 

2011), DOE tentatively concludes that 

this test method provides a repeatable 

and reproducible method for measuring 

conventional oven cavity volume. As a 

result, DOE is proposing in the SNOPR 

to incorporate by reference the relevant 

sections of AHAM–OV–1–2011 for 

determining conventional oven cavity 

volume in the DOE test procedure. 

Based on DOE’s review of products 

available on the market, DOE is 

additionally proposing test methods for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71897 

5A notation in the form ‘‘AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 

2’’ identifies a written comment (1) made by 

AHAM; (2) recorded in document number 7 that is 

filed in the docket of this test procedures 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0013) 

and maintained in the Resource Room of the 

Building Technologies Program; and (3) which 

appears on page 2 of document number 7. 

conventional ovens equipped with an 

oven separator that allows for cooking 

using the entire oven cavity in the 

absence of the separator or, if the 

separator is installed, splitting the oven 

into two smaller cavities that may be 

operated individually with independent 

temperature controls. DOE is proposing 

in the SNOPR that conventional ovens 

equipped with an oven separator shall 

be tested in each possible oven 

configuration (i.e., full oven cavity, 

upper cavity, and lower cavity) with the 

results averaged. 

DOE received comments from 

interested parties agreeing with its 

preliminary determination in the 

January 2013 NOPR that the existing 

definitions of standby mode and off 

mode do not require revision. 78 FR 

6232, 6241 (Jan. 30, 2013). Therefore 

DOE is not proposing changes to these 

definitions in the supplemental 

proposal. Additionally, DOE did not 

observe any standby mode or off mode 

operation or features unique to 

induction cooking tops and cooking 

tops and ovens with high input rate 

burners tested in support of the SNOPR 

that would warrant changes to the 

standby mode and off mode test 

methods for conventional cooking tops. 

Id. 

DOE is also proposing technical 

corrections to the calculation of derived 

results from test measurements in 

section 4 of Appendix I. Section 4 

contains a number of references to 

incorrect units of measurement and an 

incorrect value for the annual useful 

cooking energy output for gas cooktops. 

Finally, DOE noted that the headings 

for sections 4.2 and 4.2.1 in Appendix 

I regarding the calculations for 

conventional cooking tops were 

inadvertently removed. As a result, DOE 

is proposing to add the headings for 

section 4.2 ‘‘Conventional cooking top,’’ 

and section 4.2.1, ‘‘Surface unit cooking 

efficiency’’ to appropriately describe 

these sections. 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by This Test 

Procedure Rulemaking 

1. Induction Cooking Products 

As discussed in section I of this 

notice, the test procedures currently in 

Appendix I do not apply to induction 

cooking products. In the January 2013 

NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the 

definition of ‘‘conventional cooking 

top’’ to include products that feature 

electric inductive heating surface units. 

DOE noted that the definition of 

‘‘conventional range’’ would remain 

unchanged but would include the 

cooking top component of a range that 

heats by means of induction technology. 

78 FR 6232, 6234–35 (Jan. 30, 2013). 

DOE similarly proposed in the January 

2013 NOPR to revise the definition of 

‘‘active mode’’ included in Appendix I 

to account for electric inductive heating, 

consistent with the proposed definition 

of ‘‘conventional cooking top.’’ Id. 

The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) and BSH Home 

Appliances Corporation (BSH) 

commented that they do not oppose the 

proposed amended definitions of 

‘‘conventional cooking top’’ or ‘‘active 

mode,’’ but do oppose the overall 

amendments to include inductive 

heating in the test procedure at this 

time. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 2 5 BSH, 

TP No. 8 at p. 2) AHAM and BSH stated 

that they do not believe DOE’s proposed 

amendments to the test procedure allow 

for direct comparisons across cooking 

technologies, and claimed that because 

induction cooking tops and ranges do 

not heat the test block directly, the 

induction technology will be penalized. 

(AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 2; BSH, TP No. 

8 at p. 2) Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) supported the 

expansion of the cooking products test 

procedure to include induction cooking 

products, based on increased market 

availability of these products. (NRDC, 

TP No. 4, at p. 1) NRDC also urged DOE 

to ensure that its test procedures allow 

for comparisons of efficiency across 

product types (gas, electric resistance, 

and induction units) so that consumers 

are able to make informed decisions. 

(NRDC, TP No. 4 at p. 1) 

From its testing in support of this 

rulemaking, DOE determined that the 

proposed amendments accurately 

compare the energy consumption of 

induction cooking tops with the energy 

consumption of other conventional 

cooking tops. Although induction 

cooking tops heat the hybrid test block 

differently compared to other 

conventional cooking tops, this manner 

of heating is representative of how food 

loads in pots or pans are heated during 

typical consumer use (i.e., the thermal 

energy is generated in the stainless steel 

base which represents the cookware, 

and then is transferred by conduction to 

the aluminum body which simulates the 

food load.) Additionally, DOE maintains 

the proposal that the hybrid test block 

be used to test all cooking top types 

(gas, electric resistance, and induction), 

which would allow for comparable 

efficiency measurements across all of 

the covered technologies. 

2. Gas Cooking Products With High 

Input Rates 

In the previous energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for conventional 

cooking products, DOE excluded 

‘‘commercial-style’’ residential gas 

cooking products from its analysis in 

considering whether to adopt amended 

energy conservation standards, due to a 

lack of available data for determining 

efficiency characteristics of those 

products. DOE also noted that its 

cooking products test procedures may 

not adequately measure the performance 

of higher input rate burners. 74 FR 

16040, 16054 (Apr. 8, 2009); 72 FR 

64432, 64444–45 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE 

considers a cooking top burner with a 

high input rate to be a burner rated 

greater than 14,000 Btu/h. Similarly, 

DOE considers gas ovens with high 

burner input rates to be those with 

burners rated greater than 22,500 Btu/h. 

Based on investigative testing in 

support of this notice, DOE is proposing 

to amend the conventional cooking top 

test procedure in Appendix I to measure 

the energy use of gas surface units with 

high input rates and to clarify that the 

existing conventional oven test 

procedure is appropriate for ovens with 

high input rates. DOE notes that the 

current definitions for ‘‘conventional 

cooking top,’’ ‘‘conventional oven,’’ and 

‘‘conventional range’’ in 10 CFR 430.2 

already cover conventional gas cooking 

products with higher input rates 

(including commercial-style gas cooking 

products), as these products are 

household cooking appliances with 

surface units or compartments intended 

for the cooking or heating of food by 

means of a gas flame. 

B. Effective Date 

The amended test procedure would 

become effective 30 days after any test 

procedure final rule is published in the 

Federal Register. Pursuant to EPCA, 

manufacturers of covered products must 

use the applicable test procedure as the 

basis for determining that their products 

comply with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted 

pursuant to EPCA and for making 

representations about the efficiency of 

those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Beginning 180 days after 

publication of any test procedure final 

rule, representations related to the 

energy consumption of conventional 

cooking products must be based upon 

results generated under the applicable 

provisions of the amended test 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71898 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6A notation in the form ‘‘AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 29’’ identifies an oral 

comment that DOE received during the March 4, 

2013, NOPR public meeting, was recorded in the 

public meeting transcript in the docket for this test 

procedure rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2012–BT– 

TP–0013), and is maintained in the Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program. This 

particular notation refers to a comment (1) made by 

AHAM during the public meeting; (2) recorded in 

document number 5, which is the public meeting 

transcript that is filed in the docket of this test 

procedure rulemaking; and (3) which appears on 

page 29 of document number 5. 

7Cookware Manufacturers Association. Please 

see: http://www.cookware.org/tools_2.php. 

procedures in Appendix I. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(2)) 

C. Conventional Cooking Top Active 

Mode Test Procedure 

The current active mode 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 size 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 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F), the surface unit input rate 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. The current active mode 

test procedure is compatible with gas 

cooking tops and electric cooking tops 

with electric resistance heating elements 

(i.e., electric resistance heating under a 

smooth ceramic surface and open coil 

electric resistance heating). 

1. Test Block Construction 

Induction cooking products are 

compatible with only ferromagnetic 

cooking vessels because the high 

magnetic permeability of these vessels 

concentrates the induced current near 

the surface of the metal, increasing 

resistance and thus heating. Aluminum 

is not a ferromagnetic metal—its lower 

magnetic permeability allows the 

magnetic field to penetrate further into 

the material so that the induced current 

flows with little resistance, and thus 

does not heat up when it encounters an 

oscillating magnetic field. Therefore, the 

aluminum test blocks currently required 

by Appendix I are not appropriate for 

testing induction cooking products. 

As part of the January 2013 NOPR, 

DOE conducted testing to investigate 

potential substitute test blocks for 

testing induction cooking products. 

DOE conducted tests using the same 

basic test method specified in Appendix 

I, as described above, using carbon steel, 

carbon steel hybrid, and stainless steel 

hybrid test blocks. 78 FR 6232, 6235 

(Jan. 30, 2013). Table III.1 describes the 

construction of the current aluminum 

test blocks and the three substitute test 

blocks. 

TABLE III.1—TEST BLOCK COMPOSITION DESCRIPTIONS

Test block classification Test block composition 

(component and material) 

Aluminum .................................................................................................. One solid aluminum alloy 6061 block. 

Carbon Steel ............................................................................................. One solid carbon steel alloy 1018 block. 

Carbon Steel Hybrid ................................................................................. Carbon steel alloy 1018 base + Aluminum alloy 6061 body. 

Stainless Steel Hybrid .............................................................................. Stainless steel alloy 430 base + Aluminum alloy 6061 body. 

Based on its initial investigative 

testing, DOE observed that the stainless 

steel hybrid test block, hereinafter 

referred to as the hybrid test block, 

produced the most repeatable results, 

and proposed amending Appendix I to 

require these blocks for all cooking top 

testing. 78 FR 6232, 6235, 6241 (Jan. 30, 

2013). DOE verified these initial 

conclusions through additional testing 

conducted for this SNOPR (see section 

III.C.1 through section III.C.4 of this 

notice), and further evaluated an 

improvement to the hybrid test block 

through the application of thermal 

grease between the stainless steel base 

and aluminum body (see section III.C.5 

of this SNOPR.) 

In response to the January 2013 

NOPR, AHAM asked whether DOE had 

information on the typical thickness of 

a pot or pan, questioning the proposed 

thickness of the hybrid test block base 

at 0.25 inches. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 29) 6 Through 

a market search, DOE determined that 

the typical thickness of cookware 

compatible with induction cooking tops 

range from 20 gauge (∼0.04 inch) to 8 

gauge (∼0.17 inch) depending on the 

type and application of the cookware.7

Heavy-gauge pans have thicknesses as 

large as 8 or 9 millimeters (mm) (0.32 

to 0.35 inch). Additionally, the IEC 

Standard 60350–2 Edition 1.0 

‘‘Household electric cooking 

appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Method for 

measuring performance’’ specifies test 

cookware with a base thickness of 6 mm 

(0.24 inch). DOE selected the 0.25-inch 

stainless steel base to reduce the impact 

of warping but still remain within the 

plausible thickness of a pot or pan, and 

to harmonize with the IEC cookware 

base (to the nearest common dimension 

in inches). 

AHAM and BSH expressed concern 

that the results presented in the January 

2013 NOPR were obtained using one 

laboratory and a single set of test blocks. 

(AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 4; BSH, TP No. 

8 at p. 4) AHAM and BSH asked 

whether DOE had examined whether 

warping of the blocks might impact 

their heat transfer. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 27; 

AHAM, TP No. 7 at pp. 2, 4; BSH, TP 

No. 8 at pp. 2, 4) AHAM and BSH 

emphasized that any change in the 

flatness of the test blocks, including 

between layers, whether due to 

construction or warping over time, 

could impact test results and increase 

variation from test to test as there might 

not be uniform contact between the 

block and the surface unit. AHAM and 

BSH requested that DOE study the 

impact of flatness on energy 

measurements to define technically 

feasible and consistent limits for 

flatness. (AHAM, TP No. 7, at pp. 3–4; 

BSH, TP No. 8 at pp. 3–4) AHAM and 

BSH also commented that the proposed 

flatness of 0.002 total indicator reading 

(TIR) is not technically feasible for the 

9-inch diameter test block because it 

cannot be verified with commonly 

accepted laboratory equipment. Id. 

DOE evaluated the amount of warping 

observed for both the stainless steel base 

and aluminum body of the 6.25-inch 

and 9-inch hybrid test blocks originally 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71899 

purchased for testing in support of the 

January 2013 NOPR. Each of these test 

blocks underwent approximately 100 

tests. The aluminum body in both test 

block sizes remained within the 0.002 

TIR tolerance specified in the existing 

test procedure. However, the stainless 

steel base for both the 6.25-inch and 9- 

inch test block did not remain within 

tolerance, resulting in a flatness greater 

than 0.002 TIR but less than 0.004 inch 

TIR after one year of use. The cooking 

tops evaluated for this test series 

included the test sample listed in Table 

III.2. 

TABLE III.2—COOKING TOP TEST SAMPLE

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit designation Surface unit 

diameter 

Surface unit 

max rated 

power 

(W) 

A ................. Smooth—Electric Resistance .................................................... Front Right (FR) ...................... 9 3000 

A ................. Smooth—Electric Resistance .................................................... Back Left (BL) ......................... 6 1200 

B ................. Coil—Electric Resistance .......................................................... Front Right (FR) ...................... 8 2350 

B ................. Coil—Electric Resistance .......................................................... Front Left (FL) ......................... 6 1500 

C ................. Smooth—Induction .................................................................... Back Right (BR) ...................... 10 3300 

C ................. Smooth—Induction .................................................................... Front Left (FL) ......................... 7 2400 

D ................. Smooth—Induction .................................................................... Front Right (FR) ...................... 11 3700 

D ................. Smooth—Induction .................................................................... Back Right (BR) ...................... 6 1800 

E ................. Gas ............................................................................................ Front Right (FR) ...................... ........................ a 9000 

F ................. Smooth—Electric Resistance .................................................... Front Right (FR) ...................... 12 3000 

F ................. Smooth—Electric Resistance .................................................... Back Left (BL) ......................... 8 2400 

G ................. Smooth—Electric Resistance .................................................... Front Right (FR) ...................... 12 3000 

G ................. Smooth—Electric Resistance .................................................... Back Left (BL) ......................... 6 1200 

aGas surface unit max rated power is in Btu/h. 

As part of the testing conducted for 

the SNOPR, DOE fabricated a new set of 

test blocks to evaluate the effects of 

potential warping and to evaluate the 

reproducibility of the test procedure 

between multiple test laboratories. DOE 

conducted tests with these new test 

blocks as well as additional tests with 

the original test blocks that exceeded 

the 0.002 inch TIR requirement. The 

results shown in Table III.3 provide a 

comparison between tests run with intolerance hybrid test blocks at 

Laboratory 1 and out-of-tolerance test 

blocks at Laboratory 2. 

TABLE III.3—BLOCK WARPING COMPARISON OF MEASURED SURFACE UNIT EFFICIENCY

Test block size 

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Mean 

efficiency 

(Laboratory 1 

<0.002 inch 

TIR) 

(percent) 

Mean 

efficiency 

(Laboratory 2 

<0.004 inch 

TIR) 

(percent) 

Difference in 

measured 

efficiency 

9-inch Test Block .............. B Coil—Electric Resistance .......... FR 71.87 71.50 0.37 

D Induction .................................... FR 73.59 72.63 0.96 

6.25-inch Test Block ......... B Coil—Electric Resistance .......... FL 71.42 71.80 ¥0.39 

D Induction .................................... BR 72.71 73.21 ¥0.50 

The difference in the average 

measured surface unit efficiency 

between the test blocks in tolerance and 

out of tolerance and between the two 

test facilities is consistently less than 1 

percent. Additionally, the out-oftolerance test block measured 

efficiencies are not consistently higher 

or lower than the in-tolerance test block 

efficiencies, suggesting that the out-oftolerance test blocks do not have a clear 

positive or negative effect on the 

measured efficiencies. Based on these 

results, DOE tentatively concludes that 

the hybrid test block produces results 

that are reproducible and that minor 

warping has a minimal effect on 

measured efficiency. 

DOE proposes to maintain the current 

specified flatness of 0.002 inch TIR for 

the construction of both the aluminum 

body and stainless steel base of the 

hybrid test block. Based on the testing 

results showing that hybrid test block 

pieces having a flatness of 0.004 inch 

TIR or less will not greatly impact 

measured efficiency, DOE proposes that 

the stainless steel hybrid test blocks 

may continue to be used until their 

flatness exceeds 0.004 inch TIR. This 

will help reduce the burden associated 

with replacing the test blocks and 

ensuring they remain within the flatness 

tolerance. DOE expects that standard 

machine shops will likely have the 

ability to measure flatness within the 

specified tolerances. 

AHAM and BSH also stated that larger 

test blocks may have an increased 

potential for warping that could lead to 

increased variation in the test results, 

especially if a larger test block will need 

to reach higher temperatures. (AHAM, 

TP No. 7 at p. 4; BSH, TP No. 8 at 

p. 4) AHAM and BSH suggested that 

larger test blocks may not be 

technologically feasible because there is 

likely no way to transfer the heat out of 

the block fast enough. Id. Additionally, 

AHAM and BSH suggested that as the 

temperature of the block increases, the 

heat loss increases, and could 

potentially result in an inaccurate 

measurement. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 5; 

BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 5) 

To address the concerns of the large 

test block reaching higher temperatures, 

DOE evaluated the final block 

temperatures observed for both the 6.25- 

inch and 9-inch test blocks. Figure III.1 

correlates test block final temperature 

with surface unit rated power for 

induction, smooth—electric resistance, 

and coil—electric resistance cooking 

tops. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71900 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8Note that because the application of thermal 

grease between the hybrid test block pieces affected 

the rate of temperature increase of the test block, 

as discussed further in section III.C.5, the final 

temperatures presented in Figure III.1 were 

obtained using the hybrid test block with thermal 

grease. 

9The 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 the January 2013 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). 

For a given, rated, surface unit power, 

final temperatures for the 6.25-inch test 

block were higher than for the 9-inch 

test block. Generally, the 9-inch test 

block does not reach significantly higher 

temperatures when compared to the 

6.25-inch test block. Therefore, DOE 

does not expect any additional warping 

concerns or heat transfer issues for the 

9-inch test block compared to the 6.25- 

inch test block. 

AHAM and BSH noted that because 

AHAM members have seen variation in 

stainless steel composition within the 

same nominal steel type (e.g., 

differences in the amounts of carbon 

and chrome), DOE should study the 

impact of changes in the stainless steel 

composition on the surface unit 

efficiency measurement. (AHAM, TP 

No. 7 at p. 4; BSH, TP No. 8 at p.4) 

DOE spoke with material suppliers 

during the test block fabrication process. 

Suppliers did not express any concern 

that magnetic or thermal properties 

might change from lot to lot of stainless 

steel alloy 430. Moreover, there is 

limited variation of the thermal 

properties even among different grades 

of stainless steel alloy. Thus, DOE does 

not anticipate any significant variation 

within a single grade of stainless steel 

430. Additionally, DOE notes that the 

test results presented above in Table 

III.3 are based on test blocks purchased 

in different years. DOE expects that the 

blocks were manufactured from 

different lots of stainless steel and 

aluminum, yet even with the warping 

issues and testing at different labs, they 

still produced consistent results. 

For the reasons described above, DOE 

proposes an additional clarification 

requiring that the block flatness of the 

hybrid test blocks must be maintained 

within 0.004 inch TIR for testing. 

2. Water-Heating Test Method 

For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also 

conducted tests to heat water in 

standardized cooking vessels to 

compare test repeatability with the 

metal block-heating tests. DOE stated 

that 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, 

DOE also noted that 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 

laboratory to laboratory, and the 

ambient conditions and cookware 

surface effects can have a large impact 

on the water boiling and evaporating 

throughout the test. DOE conducted 

these water-heating tests using the test 

loads and test methods specified in a 

draft amendment to the IEC Standard 

60350–2 Edition 1.0 ‘‘Household 

electric cooking appliances—Part 2: 

Hobs—Method for measuring 

performance’’ (Draft IEC 60350 

Amendment) 9 with additional 

calculations to estimate the efficiency of 

the water-heating process. 78 FR 6232, 

6239–40 (Jan. 30, 2013). On April 25, 

2014, IEC made available the draft 

version of IEC Standard 60350–2 

Edition 2.0 Committee Draft (IEC 

60350–2 CD). DOE noted that the Draft 

IEC 60350 Amendment and IEC 60350– 

2 CD include the same basic test 

method. 

AHAM and BSH commented that data 

presented in the January 2013 NOPR did 

not clearly identify the test block 

method as being preferable to the waterheating method for induction units and 

requested DOE perform an additional 

study to determine which method 

produces more accurate, repeatable, and 

reproducible results. (AHAM, TP No. 7 

at p. 2; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 2) AHAM 

and BSH also commented that they do 

not believe that the January 2013 NOPR 

sufficiently demonstrated the stainless 

steel hybrid test block as the best 

method for testing induction cooking 

tops, and that neither of the considered 

test methods emerged as a more 

repeatable and reproducible method. 

Specifically, AHAM and BSH noted that 

in the January 2013 NOPR, the results 

were split, with about half of the 

standard deviations being smaller for 

the hybrid test block and half being 

smaller for the water-heating method. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP03DE14.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71901 

10The additional number of tests conducted at 

Laboratory 1, as compared to Laboratory 2, were 

primarily to evaluate repeatability of results from 

test-to-test. 

(AHAM, TP No. 7 at pp. 3, 4; BSH, TP 

No. 8 at pp. 3, 4) 

In preparation for the SNOPR, DOE 

performed additional tests to further 

evaluate the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the hybrid test block 

method as compared to the waterheating method. Table III.4 summarizes 

the test results from Laboratory 1 using 

the hybrid test blocks, the aluminumonly test blocks, and the IEC 60350–2 

CD water loads. The test sample 

included two induction cooking tops, 

two conventional electric cooking tops, 

and one conventional gas cooking top. 

Because aluminum is not compatible 

with induction cooking, DOE only 

tested the aluminum blocks on the three 

conventional cooking tops in the test 

sample. The 6.25-inch diameter test 

load was used for electric surface units 

with diameters of 7 inches or less. The 

9-inch diameter test load was used for 

electric surface units with diameters 

greater than 7 inches and all gas surface 

units, as required by Appendix I. 

TABLE III.4—LABORATORY 1 MEAN COOKING TOP EFFICIENCY

Test load size 

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Mean efficiency 

(%) 

Hybrid Aluminum Water load 

Large a ................................... A Smooth—Electric Resistance FR 67.72 75.81 79.76 

B Coil—Electric Resistance ...... FR 71.87 79.83 79.98 

C Induction ................................ BR 70.73 ........................ 78.65 

D Induction ................................ FR 73.59 ........................ 80.49 

E Gas ........................................ FR 43.94 47.02 ........................

Small b ................................... A Smooth—Electric Resistance BL 66.22 71.01 70.44 

B Coil—Electric Resistance ...... FL 71.42 76.17 76.95 

C Induction ................................ FL 69.43 ........................ 79.16 

D Induction ................................ BR 72.71 ........................ 78.49 

a Large = (9-inch for Hybrid Load and 9.45-inch for IEC Water Load). 

bSmall = (6.25-inch for Hybrid Load and 5.91-inch for IEC Water Load). 

To investigate the laboratory-tolaboratory reproducibility of test results, 

DOE conducted testing in support of the 

SNOPR at two laboratories. Two of the 

units in the test sample were tested at 

both laboratories. At Laboratory 1, a set 

of ten tests were performed on each 

surface unit using the proposed hybrid 

test blocks and the IEC 60350–2 CD 

water-heating test method. At 

Laboratory 2, three tests were performed 

for each surface unit and each test 

method.10 Table III.5 compares the 

measured efficiencies for the hybrid test 

blocks and the IEC 60350–2 CD water 

loads for the two cooking tops that were 

tested at both test laboratories. 

TABLE III.5—MEAN COOKING TOP EFFICIENCY COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST LABORATORIES

Test block size 

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Hybrid mean 

efficiency Diff. 

(percent) 

Water load mean 

efficiency Diff. 

(percent) Lab 1 

(percent) 

Lab 2 

(percent) 

Lab 1 

(percent) 

Lab 2 

(percent) 

Large a ............................... B Coil—Electric Resistance FR 71.87 71.50 0.37 79.98 79.22 0.76 

D Induction ........................... FR 73.59 72.63 0.96 80.49 81.51 ¥1.02 

Small b ............................... B Coil—Electric Resistance FL 71.42 71.80 ¥0.39 76.95 76.80 0.15 

D Induction ........................... FL 72.71 73.21 ¥0.50 78.49 81.67 ¥3.18 

a Large = (9-inch for Hybrid Load and 9.45-inch for IEC Water Load). 

bSmall = (6.25-inch for Hybrid Load and 5.91-inch for IEC Water Load). 

As discussed in section III.C.1 and 

shown in Table III.5, the hybrid test 

blocks produced reproducible results at 

the two test laboratories. The IEC 

60350–2 CD test load also produced 

similar results between the two test 

laboratories, with a slightly greater 

difference in efficiencies compared to 

the hybrid test blocks for the two 

induction surface units. 

To assess the repeatability of the two 

test loads, Table III.6 compares the 

standard deviations for each surface 

unit tested at Laboratory 1 with both the 

water-heating and hybrid block-heating 

tests. As shown in Table III.4, the waterheating tests generally result in higher 

measured efficiencies compared to the 

hybrid tests. To account for the higher 

standard deviations that may be 

associated with higher measured 

efficiencies, Table III.6 also includes the 

coefficient of variation for each set of 

tests. 

TABLE III.6—TEST METHOD STANDARD DEVIATIONS

Test load size 

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Standard deviation 

(%) 

Coefficient of 

variation 

Hybrid Water 

load Hybrid Water load 

Lab 1: 

Large ................ A Smooth—Electric Resistance ................. FR 0.57 3.05 0.008 0.039 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71902 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III.6—TEST METHOD STANDARD DEVIATIONS—Continued 

Test load size 

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Standard deviation 

(%) 

Coefficient of 

variation 

Hybrid Water 

load Hybrid Water load 

B Coil—Electric Resistance ........................ FR 1.05 2.15 0.015 0.027 

C Induction .................................................. BR 0.74 0.66 0.011 0.008 

D Induction .................................................. FR 1.02 0.57 0.014 0.007 

Small ................ A Smooth—Electric Resistance ................. BL 1.26 3.03 0.019 0.044 

B Coil—Electric Resistance ........................ FL 2.01 1.50 0.028 0.020 

C Induction .................................................. FL 1.63 2.22 0.023 0.029 

D Induction .................................................. BR 1.34 0.64 0.019 0.008 

Lab 2: 

Large ................ B Coil—Electric Resistance ........................ FR 0.39 0.37 0.004 0.004 

D Induction .................................................. FR 0.24 0.71 0.003 0.008 

Small ................ B Coil—Electric Resistance ........................ FL 0.48 4.58 0.005 0.052 

D Induction .................................................. FL 0.31 1.30 0.003 0.015 

As shown in Table III.6, the proposed 

DOE test method produced standard 

deviations of just over 2 percent or less 

for each surface unit. Conversely, 

standard deviations for the IEC 60350– 

2 CD water-heating test method 

exceeded 3 percent for some tested 

surface units, and ranged as high as 4.58 

percent. The average standard deviation 

for the proposed DOE test method 

across induction units was 0.60 percent 

for the 9-inch test block and 0.94 

percent for the 6.25-inch test block. The 

average standard deviation across all 

induction units for the water-heating 

method was 0.58 percent for the large 

IEC cookware and 2.19 percent for the 

small IEC cookware. 

Because DOE is proposing the use of 

the hybrid test block for all surface unit 

types, DOE also considered the standard 

deviation across all surface unit types 

for each test method. The average 

standard deviation for the proposed 

DOE test method across all test surface 

units was 0.67 percent for the 9-inch 

test block and 1.17 percent for the 6.25- 

inch block. The average standard 

deviation across all surface unit types 

for the water-heating method was 1.25 

percent for the large IEC cookware and 

2.21 percent for the small IEC cookware. 

Similarly, the coefficients of variation 

for the hybrid tests were, on average, 

lower than for the water-heating tests. 

The average coefficient of variation 

across all surface unit types was 0.009 

for the 9-inch test block and 0.016 for 

the 6.25-inch block, while the average 

coefficients of variation of the large and 

small IEC cookware were 0.016 and 

0.028, respectively. 

The water-heating test variability 

could potentially be reduced by 

imposing more stringent tolerances on 

the ambient conditions than Appendix 

I requires. Ambient air pressure, 

temperature, and humidity significantly 

impact the amount of water that 

evaporates during the test and the 

temperature at which the water begins 

to boil. Appendix I, however, only 

specifies ambient air temperature, and 

its relatively large tolerance, 77 °F ± 9 

°F, could contribute to increased test 

variability. However, AHAM and BSH 

also noted that if DOE were to adopt 

tighter ambient controls, it could require 

considerable financial investment to 

construct or modify a test facility to 

meet these requirements, depending on 

the limits identified. Test blocks also 

lose heat to the ambient air and the 

impact of heat loss could cause 

variation in test results. (AHAM, TP No. 

7 at p. 6; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 6) 

The water-heating tests under the 

current DOE test conditions do not 

show an improvement in test-to-test 

repeatability or laboratory-to-laboratory 

reproducibility compared to the hybrid 

block-heating tests across all surface 

unit types. For induction cooktops 

alone, the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the hybrid test block 

are sufficiently small. Because DOE 

seeks to implement a single test method 

applicable to all surface unit types, and 

because achieving reduced ambient 

temperature tolerances and adding 

humidity and pressure tolerances per 

IEC 60350–2 CD would potentially place 

a high burden on manufacturers, DOE 

maintains its proposal to use hybrid test 

blocks for all products covered under 

the proposed definition of conventional 

cooking tops and is not proposing any 

amendments to the existing ambient test 

conditions in Appendix I. 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 

indicated that it developed additional 

calculations to estimate the efficiency of 

the water-heating process in order to 

account for the amount of water that 

evaporated or boiled off. 78 FR 6232, 

6240 (Jan. 30, 2013). AHAM and BSH 

commented that it is inappropriate to 

calculate efficiency with a water-heating 

test precisely because it is always 

unknown how much water evaporates 

during the test. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 

5; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 5) AHAM and 

BSH also claimed they cannot fully or 

meaningfully evaluate the results DOE 

presented in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking because those results are 

based on energy efficiency, not 

consumption. AHAM and BSH 

requested that DOE provide energy 

consumption data to stakeholders and 

also analyze the energy consumption 

data itself in order to properly evaluate 

the accuracy, repeatability, and 

reproducibility of the water-heating test. 

AHAM and BSH suggested that it is 

possible that the standard deviations 

could be different if energy 

consumption results are evaluated 

instead of energy efficiency results and 

might indicate that the water-heating 

test is more reproducible and/or 

repeatable than the hybrid block test 

procedure. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 5; 

BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 5) 

Table III.7 and Table III.8 list the 

standard deviations and coefficients of 

variation for the energy consumption 

measured for the cooking tops in the test 

sample using the IEC 60350–2 CD waterheating test method and the proposed 

DOE test block. Data collected for both 

the January 2013 NOPR and this SNOPR 

were used to calculate the standard 

deviations and coefficients of variation 

presented in Table III.7 and Table III.8. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71903 

TABLE III.7—WATER-HEATING TEST LOAD ENERGY CONSUMPTION REPEATABILITY

Test load 

size 

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Average test 

energy 

consumption 

(Wh) 

Standard 

deviation 

(Wh) 

Coefficient of 

variation 

Large ...... A Smooth—Electric Resistance ............................... FR 550.93 10.14 0.02 

B Coil—Electric Resistance ..................................... FR 533.05 12.25 0.02 

C Induction ............................................................... BR 455.96 20.94 0.05 

D Induction ............................................................... FR 522.06 7.14 0.01 

Small ...... A Smooth—Electric Resistance ............................... BL 230.78 1.67 0.01 

B Coil—Electric Resistance ..................................... FL 241.41 5.60 0.02 

C Induction ............................................................... FL 247.44 3.67 0.02 

D Induction ............................................................... BR 226.41 9.01 0.04 

TABLE III.8—PROPOSED DOE TEST BLOCK ENERGY CONSUMPTION REPEATABILITY

Test load 

size 

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Average test 

energy 

consumption 

(Wh) 

Standard 

deviation 

Coefficient of 

variation 

Large ...... A Smooth—Electric Resistance ............................... FR 560.3 11.65 0.02 

B Coil—Electric Resistance ..................................... FR 456.77 6.49 0.01 

C Induction ............................................................... BR 379.37 3.26 0.01 

D Induction ............................................................... FR 453.27 12.58 0.03 

Small ...... A Smooth—Electric Resistance ............................... BL 225.84 8.1 0.04 

B Coil—Electric Resistance ..................................... FL 231.6 10.54 0.05 

C Induction ............................................................... FL 226.95 3.48 0.02 

D Induction ............................................................... BR 210.56 3.93 0.02 

Consistent with testing in support of 

the January 2013 NOPR, DOE found that 

energy consumption using the IEC 

60350–2 CD water-heating test method 

is not a more repeatable or reproducible 

metric than cooking efficiency for 

evaluating cooking top performance. 

The results based on energy 

consumption resulted in an average 

coefficient of variation 0.024 for the 

water-heating test method, which is 

similar to the average coefficient of 

variation for cooking top water-heating 

efficiency (0.022). Energy consumption 

as measured with the proposed DOE test 

block resulted in an average coefficient 

of variation of 0.025 which is similar to 

the variation observed using the waterheating test method. In turn, these 

coefficients of variation are both higher 

than the average coefficient of variation 

for cooking efficiency using the hybrid 

test block (0.0125 on average for both 

test block sizes). DOE observed that a 

specific turndown setting would not 

always maintain the appropriate 

simmering temperature from test to test. 

Accordingly, adjustments to the 

turndown setting between tests were 

necessary to meet the simmering 

requirements. These differences in the 

turndown setting resulted in a wide 

range of measured energy 

consumptions. DOE noted that these 

differences in the reduced settings 

corresponded to varying amounts of 

water boiled or evaporated off during 

the test. Accordingly, DOE developed 

efficiency calculations that address this 

variation, which factor in: (a) The total 

temperature rise of the water to account 

for differences in simmering 

temperatures, and (b) the total amount 

of water lost to boiling or evaporation 

during the test by measuring the mass 

of the cookware plus water at the start 

and end of the test. However, even with 

these adjustments, the test results with 

DOE’s water-heating efficiency 

calculations are still less repeatable than 

the hybrid block-heating tests. For these 

additional reasons, DOE continues to 

propose the block-heating test method 

using the hybrid test blocks. 

3. Test Block Sizes 

AHAM and BSH noted that because 

induction coils do not reach full power 

unless the test block covers the entire 

surface unit, two test blocks might not 

be sufficient. According to AHAM and 

BSH, many use and care guides instruct 

consumers to match the pot or pan to 

the size of the coil. Therefore, AHAM 

and BSH stated that in order for an 

induction cooking top test procedure to 

be representative of actual consumer 

use, the test blocks must fully cover the 

surface unit. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 4; 

BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 4) 

DOE tested four electric surface units 

covering a range of diameters using both 

the 6.25-inch and 9-inch test blocks. 

The test results evaluated the effects of 

either oversizing (using the 9-inch test 

block on a smaller surface unit) or 

under-sizing (using the 6.25-inch test 

block on a larger surface unit) the test 

block relative to the surface unit as 

shown in Table III.9. 

TABLE III.9—DIFFERENCE IN EFFICIENCIES MEASURED WITH 9-INCH AND 6.25-INCH TEST BLOCKS

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Surface unit 

diameter 

(inches) 

6.25-inch 

block 

measured 

efficiency 

(%) 

9-inch block 

measured 

efficiency 

(%) 

Measured 

efficiency 

difference 

(%) 

C ................ Induction ......................................................... FL 7 69.43 71.39 1.96 

A ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ......................... BL 6 66.22 71.25 5.03 

F a .............. Smooth—Electric Resistance ......................... FR 12 33.17 58.95 25.78 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71904 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III.9—DIFFERENCE IN EFFICIENCIES MEASURED WITH 9-INCH AND 6.25-INCH TEST BLOCKS—Continued 

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Surface unit 

diameter 

(inches) 

6.25-inch 

block 

measured 

efficiency 

(%) 

9-inch block 

measured 

efficiency 

(%) 

Measured 

efficiency 

difference 

(%) 

F a .............. Smooth—Electric Resistance ......................... BL 8 49.61 72.87 23.26 

a Cooking top F was added to the test sample to investigate block sizing but was not included in the repeatability results as it was not tested 

for the January 2013 NOPR. 

Results showed that for surface units 

with diameters up to 7 inches, the 

difference in measured efficiency 

between the 9-inch test block and the 

6.25-inch test block was on average less 

than 3.5 percent and within the typical 

test-to-test variation. However, for 

surface unit diameters exceeding the 

small test block diameter by 1.75 inches 

or more, differences in measured 

efficiency were on the order of 25 

percent. These results show that as the 

difference between test block diameter 

and surface unit diameter increases, an 

undersized test block would reduce 

measured cooking efficiency for surface 

units with larger diameters. The results 

do not show a similar effect for 

oversizing the test block. While it is not 

possible to undersize the test block on 

an induction surface unit because 

internal controls sense the cookware 

diameter to protect the unit from 

misuse, oversizing the test block does 

not greatly affect current generation in 

the base of the hybrid test block based 

on DOE testing, and resulted in similar 

measured efficiencies between the 6.25- 

inch and 9-inch block. For smooth 

cooking tops with electric resistance 

heating, when the test block is 

undersized, heat from the surface unit’s 

heating element that exceeds the test 

block diameter is transferred to the 

ambient air. When oversized, the entire 

smooth heating element serves to heat 

the test block with only limited heat 

transfer back to the cooktop surface. 

Based on a review of the market, DOE 

found that electric cooking top surface 

unit diameters typically reach up to 12 

inches. In determining an appropriate 

test block size for these larger surface 

units, DOE noted that the hybrid test 

block proposed for use with gas cooking 

tops with higher surface unit input 

rates, as described in section III.D.1 

below, had the appropriate diameter to 

capture the range of large electric 

surface units in the residential market. 

Selecting this test block for use with 

large electric surface units would also 

minimize manufacturer burden because 

the two test blocks proposed for use 

with gas cooking tops could be used to 

test electric cooking tops. Table III.10 

contains efficiencies measured with the 

10.5-inch test block for four surface 

units greater than 10 inches in diameter. 

TABLE III.10—DIFFERENCE IN EFFICIENCIES MEASURED WITH 10.5-INCH AND 9-INCH TEST BLOCKS

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Surface unit 

diameter 

(inches) 

9-inch block 

measured 

efficiency 

(%) 

10.5-inch 

block 

measured 

efficiency 

(%) 

Measured 

efficiency 

difference 

(%) 

A ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ......................... FL 12 52.95 56.07 3.12 

F a .............. Smooth—Electric Resistance ......................... FR 12 58.95 63.04 4.09 

G a .............. Smooth—Electric Resistance ......................... FR 12 57.09 71.22 14.13 

a Cooking tops F and G were added to the test sample to investigate block sizing but were not included in the repeatability results as it was not 

tested for the January 2013 NOPR. 

Results indicated that efficiencies 

measured with the 10.5-inch test block 

are higher than those measured with the 

9-inch test block. However, because the 

difference in size between the two 

blocks is less than the difference in size 

between the 6.25-inch and 9-inch test 

block, the efficiency increase is not as 

significant. 

Table III.11 lists the dimensions and 

thermal properties of the three proposed 

hybrid test blocks. 

TABLE III.11—HYBRID TEST BLOCK SPECIFICATIONS

Test block size Block diameter 

(inches) 

Block height 

(inches) 

Block weight 

(pounds (lb)) 

Specific heat 

(Btu/lb-°F) 

Heat capacity 

(Btu/°F) 

Small Stainless Steel Base .................................................. 6.25 0.25 2.15 0.11 0.24 

Small Aluminum Body .......................................................... 6.25 2.5 7.46 0.23 1.72 

Small Total .................................................................... 6.25 2.75 9.61 0.20 1.96 

Medium Stainless Steel Base .............................................. 9 0.25 4.28 0.11 0.47 

Medium Aluminum Body ...................................................... 9 2.72 16.85 0.23 3.87 

Medium Total ................................................................ 9 2.97 21.13 0.21 4.34 

Large Stainless Steel Base ................................................. 10.5 0.25 6.09 0.11 0.67 

Large Aluminum Body ......................................................... 10.5 3.48 29.39 0.23 6.76 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71905 

TABLE III.11—HYBRID TEST BLOCK SPECIFICATIONS—Continued 

Test block size Block diameter 

(inches) 

Block height 

(inches) 

Block weight 

(pounds (lb)) 

Specific heat 

(Btu/lb-°F) 

Heat capacity 

(Btu/°F) 

Large Total .................................................................... 10.5 3.73 35.48 0.21 7.43 

DOE also investigated how test block 

size might affect surface unit power 

during the test to determine if surface 

unit input rate was dependent on test 

block diameter. By testing certain 

surface units with both the 6.25-inch 

and 9-inch test blocks, DOE was able to 

compare the average energy input rate 

and maximum power during the heat-up 

period (i.e., the period at the maximum 

setting) for the different block sizes. 

Table III.12 compares the average and 

maximum power during the heat-up 

period for the two current test block 

sizes on four surface units. 

TABLE III.12—ENERGY INPUT RATE AT THE MAXIMUM SETTING

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Surface unit 

diameter 

(inches) 

Test block 

size 

Average 

power at 

max setting 

(W) 

Maximum 

power 

(W) 

A ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ........................... BL 6 6.25-inch ..... 1211.3 1344 

A ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ........................... BL 6 9-inch .......... 1065.0 1317.6 

A ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ........................... FR 9 6.25-inch ..... 2894.6 3218 

A ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ........................... FR 9 9-inch .......... 2644.2 3210 

D* .............. Induction ........................................................... BR 6 6.25-inch ..... 1878.5 2052 

D* .............. Induction ........................................................... BR 6 9-inch .......... 1458.6 2105 

* Cooking Top D was tested with thermal grease, which is discussed further in section III.C.5, to determine a more representative maximum 

power level for induction cooking tops. For smooth—electric resistance cooking tops, based on DOE’s testing, the maximum power level for the 

smooth cooking top was not affected by the presence of thermal grease. 

These test results show that for each 

surface unit tested, the average power 

during the heat-up period for the 6.25- 

inch test block is higher than for the 9- 

inch test block, even when the test block 

is significantly undersized. However, 

the maximum instantaneous power 

measured at the maximum setting on 

average shows no significant difference 

between the two test block sizes. Based 

on these results showing that both test 

block sizes allow surface units to reach 

the same maximum power, DOE 

determined that the proposed test block 

sizes are appropriate. 

4. Non-Circular and Flexible Surface 

Units 

In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that for non-circular surface 

units, the appropriate test block size 

would be determined based on the 

surface unit’s shortest dimension. 78 FR 

6232, 6241 (Jan. 30, 2103). AHAM asked 

whether DOE had conducted any testing 

on the non-circular types of surface 

units or considered how different sizes 

of hybrid test blocks might impact the 

results. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 41) AHAM 

and BSH also stated that while DOE’s 

test block proposal would address 

rectangular or oval-shaped surface units, 

it would not address surface elements 

that are not clearly defined. According 

to these commenters, there is a current 

trend in the market to have flexible 

cooking zones—i.e., those that do not 

have clearly defined edges. AHAM and 

BSH requested that DOE develop a 

procedure that would allow units with 

flexible cooking zones to be accurately 

tested. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 6; BSH, 

TP No. 8 at p. 6) 

Based on a review of products on the 

market, DOE is aware of full-surface 

induction cooking tops with no clearly 

defined cooking zones. These cooking 

tops have multiple smaller inductors 

underneath the cooking top surface, 

which are fully or partially energized 

depending on the size of the cookware. 

Because the inductors are typically all 

the same size and distributed evenly 

across the cooking surface, DOE does 

not expect efficiency to vary 

significantly with location on the 

cooking surface. However, efficiency 

may vary with the different test block 

sizes. For these units with no clear 

surface unit markings, consumers may 

use any size cookware on the cooking 

top. To ensure testing covers the range 

of heating loads that may be used, DOE 

proposes that these full-surface cooking 

tops be tested with each of the proposed 

hybrid test block sizes (6.25-inch, 9- 

inch, and 10.5-inch diameters). Each 

test block would be tested separately by 

placing the block in the center of the 

usable induction surface and following 

the same proposed test method for 

testing individual surface units. The 

center of the usable induction surface 

may be offset from the geometric center 

of the cooking top because full-surface 

controls and displays may be embedded 

in the surface of the cooking top, 

reducing the usable induction surface 

available for cooking. DOE proposes that 

each test block would be centered so 

that it is equidistant from any 

boundaries of the usable induction 

surface, including boundaries due to the 

placement of the controls or display. 

The efficiency of the cooking top would 

be the average of the measured 

efficiencies using each of test blocks. 

DOE measured the efficiency of a 

single full-surface induction cooking top 

to evaluate the proposed test method. 

Table III.13 displays measured 

efficiency in the center of the cooking 

top as well as the standard deviation of 

four tests per test block, run at different 

positions on the cooking top (center, 

right of center, back left, and front left). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71906 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III.13—FULL-SURFACE INDUCTION COOKING TOP MEASURED EFFICIENCY

Hybrid test block diameter 

Measured 

efficiency at the 

center of the 

cooking top 

(%) 

Standard deviation 

of off-center 

measurements 

(%) 

6.25-inch ...................................................................................................................................................... 65.84 1.85 

9-inch ........................................................................................................................................................... 66.14 2.77 

10.5-inch ...................................................................................................................................................... 71.32 2.42 

Changing test block position did not 

have a significant effect on measured 

efficiency, but the standard deviations 

resulting from changing position were 

higher than the standard deviations 

measured with a hybrid test block on a 

standard induction cooking top. 

Specifying test block position is 

necessary to ensure repeatability. 

Furthermore, the average efficiency, as 

measured with the three test blocks, is 

67.77 percent. 

Many smooth—electric resistance 

cooking tops have ‘‘multi-ring’’ 

elements that have multiple concentric 

heating elements for a single surface 

unit. When a single ring is energized, 

this corresponds to the smallest 

diameter surface unit available. When 

two rings are energized, the diameter of 

the surface unit increases. This 

continues for as many concentric 

heating elements as are available for the 

surface unit. Multiple heating elements 

give the user flexibility to adjust the 

surface unit to fit a certain cookware 

size. Because each heating element can 

typically be controlled independently, 

DOE conducted tests on multi-ring 

elements to determine if the different 

control settings result in different 

measured efficiencies. Table III.14 lists 

the measured efficiencies for the multiring surface units on two smooth— 

electric resistance cooking tops. 

TABLE III.14—MULTI-RING SMOOTH—ELECTRIC RESISTANCE COOKING TOP EFFICIENCY

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Surface unit 

size 

(inches) 

Number of 

rings 

energized 

Size of largest 

energized ring 

(inches) 

Test block size 

(inches) 

Cooking 

efficiency 

(percent) 

A ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance FR 9 Dual ...........

Single ........

9 

6 

9 

6.25 

67.7 

59.2 

F ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance FR 12 Triple .........

Dual ...........

Single ........

12 

9 

6 

10.5 

9 

6.25 

71.9 

66.7 

57.8 

F ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance BL 8 Dual ...........

Single ........

8 

5 

9 

6.25 

72.9 

62.8 

For each of the multi-ring surface 

units, the largest-diameter setting (i.e., 

the setting using all available rings) 

resulted in the highest measured 

efficiencies. Each surface unit showed a 

significant decrease in efficiency at the 

smaller-diameter settings, up to 14.1 

percentage points. Because of the 

observed differences in efficiency at the 

different surface unit settings, DOE 

proposes that each distinct diameter 

setting for a multi-ring surface unit be 

tested as a separate surface unit. For 

example, if the surface unit has three 

settings with outer diameters of 12, 9, 

and 6 inches, each setting would be 

tested separately with the appropriately 

sized test block, and the results would 

be factored in to the overall cooking top 

efficiency calculation as if they were 

individual surface units. 

DOE is aware of other non-circular 

electric cooking top elements such as 

bridge zones, warming plates, grills and 

griddles that are not intended for use 

with a typical circular piece of 

cookware. Appropriate test blocks for 

these heating elements would depend 

on the intended function of each surface 

unit. DOE expects that specifying and 

requiring additional test blocks for these 

specific heating elements would place 

an unreasonable burden on test 

laboratories and manufacturers. 

Additionally DOE expects use of these 

types of surface units to be much less 

frequent than the standard surface units 

used for circular pots and pans. DOE 

notes that some gas cooking tops may 

also be equipped with warming plates, 

grills and griddles that are not intended 

solely for use with a typical piece of 

circular cookware. As a result, DOE is 

not proposing to require testing of gas 

warming plates, grills, and griddles in 

determining cooking top efficiency. 

5. Improved Heat Transfer Within the 

Hybrid Test Block 

In response to the January 2013 

NOPR, AHAM and BSH commented 

that the proposed description of test 

block construction was ambiguous and 

requested that construction be clearly 

defined so as to limit laboratory-tolaboratory variation in test results. 

AHAM and BSH also asked whether a 

bonding agent should be used to join the 

aluminum and stainless steel pieces or 

if test technicians should layer one 

piece on top of the other without 

bonding. Furthermore, AHAM and BSH 

asked whether DOE had performed 

testing to see whether adding a bonding 

agent led to more repeatable and 

reproducible results. (AHAM, TP No. 7 

at p. 3; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 3) 

In addition to questions regarding the 

construction of the test block, AHAM 

and BSH asked whether DOE had 

examined the heat transfer between the 

stainless steel base and aluminum body 

of the hybrid test block. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 27; 

AHAM, TP No. 7 at pp. 2, 4; BSH, TP 

No. 8 at pp. 2, 4) During recent 

manufacturer interviews conducted as 

part of a separate rulemaking to 

consider amended energy conservation 

standards for conventional cooking 

products, manufacturers stated that any 

small imperfections in the contacting 

surfaces of the hybrid test block, due to 

warping or machining, leave an air gap 

between the base and body of the hybrid 

test block which may result in poor 

thermal contact between the two layers. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71907 

11The full turndown period is not shown in the 

Figure III.2. Only the beginning portion of the test 

cycle is shown to highlight the temperature profile 

for the heat-up phase of the test. 

According to manufacturers, the 

proposed test block construction may 

not produce test results that are typical 

of consumer use (e.g., boiling water). 

For the January 2013 NOPR, the 

aluminum body and stainless steel base 

of the hybrid test blocks were machined 

from extruded bar stock, and the 

aluminum body was placed on top of 

the stainless steel base for each test. No 

bonding agent was used to join the base 

and body of the hybrid blocks because 

DOE observed that the weight and 

resulting friction kept the aluminum 

body firmly fixed to the base throughout 

the duration of the test. However, 

because stakeholders expressed concern 

over the thermal contact between the 

stainless steel base and aluminum body, 

DOE investigated the effect of applying 

a layer of thermal grease between the 

two pieces. Thermal grease is not a 

permanent bonding agent, but its high 

viscosity and thermal conductivity 

ensures good contact between the base 

and body of the hybrid test block, filling 

any surface imperfections. 

DOE liberally applied a layer of silverbased thermal grease to the stainless 

steel base, using the aluminum body to 

apply pressure and spread the grease 

evenly across the surface of the base 

until there was complete coverage of the 

contacting surface of each piece. The 

thermal conductivity of the selected 

grease was approximately 1.73 Btu/hr-ft- 

°F (1.0 W/m-K). 

Figure III.2 shows the initial 

temperature rise of the hybrid test block 

on an induction surface unit both with 

and without thermal grease when tested 

according to Appendix I. As noted 

above, Appendix I requires that the 

surface unit be set to its maximum 

power setting during the initial 

temperature rise. Once the test block 

temperature reaches 144 °F above the 

starting temperature, the control power 

setting is turned down. The turndown is 

reflected in the figure as a change in the 

rate of temperature increase.11 Figure 

III.2 also includes the temperature rise 

of a boiling water load for comparison. 

All three tests were performed on the 6- 

inch diameter back right induction 

surface unit of cooking top D. 

The rate of temperature increase 

during the initial temperature rise of the 

hybrid test block changes significantly 

with the addition of thermal grease and 

closely resembles the initial temperature 

rise of the water load as shown in Figure 

III.2. This change suggests that by 

adding thermal grease, the hybrid test 

block method may be more 

representative of actual cooking top 

usage than the test block without 

thermal grease. DOE observed similar 

changes in the rate of temperature 

increase for larger test block sizes and 

for all types of cooking tops. 

DOE investigated the impact on 

measured efficiency and repeatability of 

varying the quantity of thermal grease as 

well as varying the application 

technique. An example application 

technique included applying the grease 

in an ‘‘X’’ shape near the center of the 

stainless steel base and applying 

pressure with the aluminum body to 

spread the grease evenly across the base. 

Alternate techniques included applying 

the grease in a line and spreading the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP03DE14.002</GPH>
71908 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

grease with a spackling knife. Table 

III.15 contains the average efficiency 

and standard deviation for multiple 

runs with each application technique. 

Regardless of the application technique 

or grease quantity, thick, even 

application of the grease yielded similar 

results. Nineteen investigative thermal 

grease tests performed on a single 

induction surface unit, 6 inches in 

diameter, resulted in an overall standard 

deviation of 1.43%. 

TABLE III.15—EFFECT OF VARIATION IN THERMAL GREASE APPLICATION ON EFFICIENCY FOR COOKING TOP D 

Application type 

Number of 

tests per 

application 

Average 

efficiency 

(percent) 

Standard 

deviation 

(percent) 

X-shape, 12 grams (g) ................................................................................................................. 3 70.90 0.75 

Spread evenly with spackling knife, 7g ....................................................................................... 2 68.94 1.05 

X-shape, 10g ............................................................................................................................... 3 68.93 0.08 

Spread evenly with spackling knife, 12g ..................................................................................... 6 69.99 0.57 

Spread evenly with spackling knife, 10g ..................................................................................... 5 71.67 0.08 

Average for all runs .............................................................................................................. 19 70.30 1.43 

After conducting these tests, DOE 

separated the hybrid test block pieces 

and observed that the amount of thermal 

grease listed in Table III.16 produced an 

even layer that fully covered the surface 

between the test blocks. After six tests 

with a test block, DOE also noted that 

the thermal grease had dried out and 

had to be removed and replaced. 

TABLE III.16—THERMAL GREASE

QUANTITY REQUIRED FOR EVEN

TEST BLOCK COVERAGE

Hybrid test block diameter 

(inches) 

Quantity of 

thermal grease 

(g) 

6.25 ...................................... 10–12 

9 ........................................... 20–25 

10.5 ...................................... 28–34 

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

proposes to amend Appendix I to 

require, in addition to the hybrid test 

block configuration proposed in the 

January 2013 NOPR, that a layer of 

thermal grease be applied to evenly 

cover the surface between the stainless 

steel base and the aluminum body of the 

hybrid test block for all test block sizes. 

The amount of thermal grease applied 

would be dependent on the test block 

diameter, according to the quantities 

listed in Table III.16. The thermal grease 

would be required to have a thermal 

conductivity of at least 1.73 Btu/hr-ft-°F 

(1.0 W/m-K). DOE also proposes to 

require the use of this modified hybrid 

test block for all conventional cooking 

tops and for the cooking top component 

of all conventional ranges. This will 

allow measured efficiency to be 

comparable across product classes and 

will also reduce manufacturer burden 

by not requiring additional test block 

configurations. 

6. Expected Cooking Top Performance 

AHAM and BSH commented that the 

test block method in general may not be 

representative of actual consumer use, 

especially for induction technology. 

AHAM and BSH requested that DOE 

consider the amount of time consumers 

typically spend cooking a food load to 

capture any potential energy efficiency 

benefits to induction technology in the 

short term (e.g., heating-up phase of 

cooking) that might even out across 

technologies as cooking time increases 

(e.g., simmering). According to AHAM 

and BSH, energy use and efficiency for 

cooking products is a function of a 

consumer’s individual cooking 

behavior, and consumer use of cooking 

products varies from person to person. 

(AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 2; BSH, TP No. 

8 at p. 2) 

As discussed in section III.C.5, 

comparing the initial temperature rise of 

the hybrid test block with thermal 

grease to the initial temperature rise of 

water suggests that the test block 

method is representative of real-world 

cooking vessel heating. The initial heatup period at the maximum energy input 

rate setting as specified in Appendix I 

is determined based on test block 

temperature, not a specified time, so if 

a certain technology achieves the initial 

temperature rise more quickly (e.g., with 

less energy to reach that state,) the test 

procedure would reflect that in a higher 

cooking efficiency. To examine 

performance of the heat-up period 

independent of the simmering period, 

DOE calculated surface unit efficiency 

for only the initial temperature rise of 

144 °F. Due to changes in product 

availability over the course of the testing 

performed for the SNOPR, DOE selected 

additional cooking tops to evaluate with 

the thermal grease. Table III.17 provides 

an updated list of tested surface units 

for this investigation. 

TABLE III.17—COOKING TOP SURFACE UNITS EVALUATED WITH THERMAL GREASE

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Surface unit 

diameter 

(inches) 

Surface unit 

max rated 

power 

(W) 

D ................ Induction ................................................................................................................. FR 11 3700 

D ................ Induction ................................................................................................................. BR 6 1800 

F ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ................................................................................. FR 12 3000 

F ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ................................................................................. BR 6 1200 

G ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ................................................................................. FR 12 3000 

G ................ Smooth—Electric Resistance ................................................................................. BL 6 1200 

H ................ Induction ................................................................................................................. FR 10 3400 

H ................ Induction ................................................................................................................. BL 8 3200 

H ................ Induction ................................................................................................................. FL 7 2600 

I .................. Coil—Electric Resistance ....................................................................................... BR 6 1250 

I .................. Coil—Electric Resistance ....................................................................................... FL 8 2100 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71909 

12 K.C. Datwyler and J.R. McFadden. 1992. ‘‘A 

Comparative Analysis of Performance 

Characteristics of Gas and Electric Cooktops.’’ 

Proceedings of the 43rd Annual International 

Appliance Technical Conference, West Lafayette, 

IN, May, 1992, pp 485–496. 

Table III.18 disaggregates the results 

from the testing discussed in section 

III.C.5 to show the average surface unit 

performance during the initial heat-up 

period. 

TABLE III.18—HYBRID TEST BLOCK HEAT-UP EFFICIENCY

Test block size 

Cooking 

top unit 

designation 

Heating technology Surface unit 

designation 

Full test 

efficiency 

(percent) 

Heat up 

efficiency 

(percent) 

Heat up 

time 

(min) 

10.5-inch Hybrid Test Block ......... D Induction ...................................... FR 78.18 77.34 6.33 

G Smooth—Electric Resistance ...... FR 72.95 66.12 8.97 

H Induction ...................................... FR 69.79 67.48 8.00 

9-inch Hybrid Test Block .............. H Induction ...................................... BL 73.78 68.20 5.05 

I Coil—Electric Resistance ............ FR 68.86 64.82 8.06 

6.25-inch Hybrid Test Block ......... D Induction ...................................... BR 69.99 72.30 3.67 

G Smooth—Electric Resistance ...... BL 66.94 61.17 6.37 

H Induction ...................................... FL 69.38 65.61 2.97 

I Coil—Electric Resistance ............ BR 73.54 70.60 5.43 

Table III.18 shows that for all test 

block sizes, the measured efficiency 

during the heat-up period is generally 

higher for the induction surface units 

than for the coil—electric resistance, 

smooth—electric resistance, and gas 

surface units. Induction surface units 

also had the shortest heat-up times for 

each of the test block sizes. 

Differentiation in efficiency between 

cooking top types decreases when 

examining the full test efficiency 

suggesting that while the test procedure 

captures the efficiency increase of 

induction during the initial heat up, 

induction cooking tops may be less 

efficient during simmering. 

Additionally, DOE is not aware of any 

data showing that consumers use 

induction cooking tops differently than 

conventional cooking tops to cook the 

same food load. Thus, DOE determined 

that the proposed test procedure, which 

measures cooking efficiency over an 

entire cooking process including heatup and simmering periods, would be 

appropriate for all of the proposed 

covered product types. 

AHAM and BSH commented that the 

test results presented in the January 

2013 NOPR did not correspond with 

DOE’s former conclusions regarding the 

efficiency of induction elements as 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the December 

2009 Technical Support Document for 

residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, 

cooking products, and commercial 

clothes washers, which found a cooking 

efficiency of 84 percent. Docket No. 

EERE–2006–STD–0127 (Dec. 2009). 

AHAM and BSH suggested that one 

reason why the efficiencies presented in 

the January 2013 NOPR might not match 

this earlier figure may be that the 

proposed test block procedure does not 

accurately capture induction element 

efficiency and requested an explanation 

for the difference. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at 

p. 3; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 3) 

The 84-percent efficiency listed for 

induction cooking tops in the December 

2009 Technical Support Document was 

referenced from an external test study.12

DOE notes that although the efficiencies 

presented in the January 2013 NOPR 

and in the SNOPR do not match the 

values determined in the external study 

for induction surface units, the study 

used a similar block-heating procedure. 

The study tested induction and other 

cooking tops using a 9-inch carbon steel 

test block with specifications similar to 

those used for the carbon steel test block 

testing conducted in support of the 

January 2013 NOPR. 78 FR 6232, 6237 

(Jan. 30, 2013). The discrepancy in 

results between DOE’s investigative 

testing and that of the external study is 

therefore not due to the proposed test 

block procedure. Based on the 

consistency of its test data from two test 

laboratories, DOE determined that the 

proposed test block-heating test 

procedure accurately reflects induction 

surface unit heating efficiencies. 78 FR 

6232, 6237–40 (Jan. 30, 2013). 

The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) asked whether the DOE 

test results show a relative increase in 

efficiency for induction compared to 

electric resistance cooking tops. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, TP No. 5 at 

p. 30) Based on the proposed hybrid test 

block results in the SNOPR, the tested 

induction surface units have an average 

efficiency of 72.2 percent, which is not 

significantly higher than the 69.9 

average efficiency of smooth—electric 

resistance surface units or the 71.2- 

percent average electric coil surface unit 

efficiency. 

ASAP also asked whether the 

efficiency results measured with the 

hybrid test block serve as a good 

predictor of efficiency compared to 

measurements made by the waterheating test in terms of the relative 

ranking of units. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 38) Table 

III.19 provides a ranking of selected 

cooking top surface units by efficiency 

for each test method. 

TABLE III.19—HYBRID TEST BLOCK AND WATER-LOAD RANKING OF SURFACE UNITS BY EFFICIENCY

Rank 10.5-inch hybrid Large water load 6.25-inch hybrid Small water load 

1 ........ I—Electric Coil * ..... 70.89% I—Electric Coil ....... 85.54% I—Electric Coil ....... 73.54% H—Induction .......... 87.47% 

2 ........ D—Induction .......... 73.59% H—Induction .......... 85.05% D—Induction .......... 69.99% D—Induction .......... 78.49% 

3 ........ H—Induction .......... 70.74% D—Induction .......... 80.45% H—Induction .......... 69.38% I—Electric Coil ....... 76.80% 

4 ........ F—Smooth ............ 69.69% F—Smooth ............ 79.65% F—Smooth ............ 64.06% F—Smooth ............ 74.87% 

* Test performed with the 9-inch hybrid test block. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71910 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

The efficiency results in Table III.19 

show that the hybrid test blocks resulted 

in a more consistent efficiency ranking 

for the different test block sizes as 

compared to the water heating test. 

Although different-sized surface units 

may have different cooking efficiencies, 

DOE expects that surface units within 

the same cooking top using the same 

heating technology would have similar 

cooking efficiencies, as observed in the 

hybrid test block results. The waterheating tests resulted in inconsistent 

rankings and efficiencies between the 

two test load sizes The higher test-totest variability observed from these 

water heating tests could be one cause 

for the differences in efficiency rankings 

compared to the hybrid test block 

results. 

Based on the further investigation of 

the test results in support of the SNOPR, 

as discussed above, DOE preliminarily 

concludes that the proposed test method 

using hybrid test blocks with thermal 

grease accurately reflects the 

performance of covered cooking tops. 

7. Clarification of the Reduced Energy 

Input Setting 

AHAM and BSH commented that it 

would be difficult to determine the 

turndown setting of the surface unit (25 

± 5 percent of the maximum energy 

input rate) when using the proposed test 

block method. According to these 

commenters, preliminary testing or trialand-error may be required to determine 

the appropriate turndown setting. 

(AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 5; BSH, TP No. 

8 at p. 5) 

DOE agrees that a set of preliminary 

tests are required to determine the 

correct turndown setting. However, DOE 

understands that the current test 

procedure already requires preliminary 

tests to determine the turndown setting 

because the power level for each control 

setting of a given surface unit may not 

be explicitly stated and may not 

correspond to an exact percentage of the 

total power. As a result, this 

requirement does not increase burden. 

DOE notes that the preliminary tests to 

determine appropriate reduced settings 

are not unique to block-heating tests; the 

IEC 60350–2 CD procedure requires an 

initial test to determine when the 

control setting shall be reduced based 

on temperature of the water. Test 

technicians may limit the burden 

associated with determining the correct 

setting by using the manufacturer’s 

power rating of the surface unit to make 

an initial guess at the turndown setting 

and then making adjustments to the 

selected setting so that in subsequent 

tests, the turndown setting corresponds 

to the 25 ± 5 percent requirement. 

Additionally, AHAM and BSH 

commented that each cooking top has a 

different maximum energy input rate 

per surface unit depending on the 

manufacturer, and the power at the 

turndown setting can differ significantly 

between cooking tops. AHAM and BSH 

noted that while a cooking top requiring 

a higher power to maintain the 25 

percent of the maximum energy input 

rate during the 15-minute reduced 

setting period might suggest higher 

energy losses to the room’s ambient air, 

a higher maximum energy input rate 

does not necessarily mean that the 

cooking top is less efficient. AHAM and 

BSH suggested that a better approach is 

to control the steady-state temperature 

of the block, as is done for the water in 

the IEC water-heating method, instead 

of the power level. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at 

p. 5; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 5) 

Although surface units with higher 

power ratings would be expected to 

reach higher maximum temperatures 

throughout testing, Figure III.1 in 

section III.C.1 shows that power rating 

and maximum test block temperature 

are not necessarily correlated. Both test 

block sizes and a range of surface unit 

rated powers all resulted in similar 

maximum temperatures. DOE also notes 

that requiring a constant test block 

temperature at the reduced setting 

would likely result in even greater test 

burden in determining the reduced 

control setting. If the energy into the test 

block did not exactly equal losses to the 

ambient air, the test block would 

continue to heat up or cool down at the 

reduced setting. Finding the appropriate 

setting to maintain the test block 

temperature within a reasonable 

tolerance would likely require more 

trial-and-error tests than determining 

the current reduced setting at 25 ± 5 

percent of the maximum energy input 

rate. For these reasons, DOE proposes to 

maintain its test block-heating 

procedure requiring a reduced setting at 

25 ± 5 percent of the test unit’s 

maximum energy input rate. 

DOE also notes that the test procedure 

does not currently specify the period 

over which the maximum energy input 

rate is determined; it could be an 

instantaneous energy input rate 

measurement or the average energy 

consumption rate determined over the 

entire period at the maximum setting. 

DOE has observed that the 

instantaneous maximum energy input 

rate for electric units may vary from test 

to test based on instantaneous supply 

voltage. A spike in voltage within the 

allowable tolerance at the maximum 

setting could result in testing at a higher 

reduced setting, impacting test-to-test 

repeatability. DOE also notes that at the 

reduced setting, electric resistance 

heating elements typically cycle off and 

on, which results in lower average 

energy input rates over the entire period 

compared to the maximum setting, but 

similar instantaneous energy input rates 

when the heating element is energized. 

To improve test-to-test repeatability, 

and to better reflect typical cooking top 

operation, DOE is proposing to clarify in 

section 3.1.2 of Appendix I that the 

maximum energy input rate be 

determined as the total energy 

consumed at the maximum setting 

divided by the time operated at the 

maximum setting. Similarly, DOE is 

proposing to clarify that the energy 

input rate at the reduced setting be 

calculated as the total energy consumed 

at the reduced setting divided by the 

time operated at the reduced setting; 

this value shall be 25 ± 5 percent of the 

maximum energy input rate. 

D. Gas Cooking Products With High 

Input Rates 

As discussed in section I.B, as part of 

the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that 

it tentatively plans to consider energy 

conservation standards for all consumer 

conventional cooking products, 

including commercial-style gas cooking 

products and standard surface units 

with higher input rates. 79 FR 8337, 

8340 (Feb. 12, 2014). 

The test procedure for gas cooking 

tops is currently based on measuring 

temperature rise in an aluminum block 

with a single diameter for all burner 

input rates. In the previous energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE concluded that the diameter of the 

test block is sufficient to measure 

consumer cooking top burners with high 

input rates. For cooking tops that may 

have high input rate burners with larger 

diameters to accomplish complete 

combustion, however, DOE noted that 

this test block diameter may be too 

small to achieve proper heat transfer 

and may not be representative of the 

dimensions of suitable cookware. DOE 

further stated that it was not aware of 

any data to determine the measurement 

of energy efficiency or energy efficiency 

characteristics for those products. 72 FR 

64432, 64444 (Nov. 15, 2007). 

DOE also noted in its previous 

rulemaking that the test procedure may 

not adequately measure performance of 

gas ovens with high input rates. DOE 

stated that the single oven test block 

may not adequately measure the 

temperature distribution that is inherent 

with the larger cavity volumes and 

higher input rates typically found in 

these products. DOE stated that it was 

not aware of any data upon which to 

determine the measurement of energy 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71911 

13A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for residential conventional cooking 

products (Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005), 

which is maintained in the Resource Room of the 

Building Technologies Program. This notation 

identifies a written comment: (1) Made by Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas 

Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and 

Southern California Edison (the California Investor 

Owned Utilities (IOUs)); (2) recorded in document 

number 11 in the docket for the residential 

conventional cooking products energy conservation 

standards rulemaking; and (3) which appears at 

page 2 of that document. 

efficiency or energy efficiency 

characteristics for gas ovens with high 

input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64445 (Nov. 

15, 2007). 

Because DOE is tentatively planning 

to consider energy conservation 

standards for all consumer gas cooking 

products and has observed performance 

differences between standard gas 

surface units and units with higher 

input rates, DOE evaluated the 

appropriateness of the existing test 

methods in Appendix I for use with 

these high input rate products and is 

proposing to amend test methods for 

measuring the energy consumption of 

such gas surface units in this SNOPR. 

These amendments would apply to all 

consumer cooking tops with high input 

rate surface units, including those 

marketed as commercial-style. 

Additionally, DOE determined that the 

existing test methods in Appendix I are 

appropriate for testing ovens with high 

input rates, including gas ovens 

marketed as commercial-style. The 

proposed amendments are discussed in 

the following sections. 

1. Surface Units With Input Rates 

Greater Than 14,000 Btu/h 

In a response to the February 2014 

RFI, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Southern California Gas Company, San 

Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern 

California Edison (hereinafter referred to 

as the California Investor Owned 

Utilities (IOUs)) suggested that DOE 

consider ASTM F1521–12—‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Performance of Range 

Tops’’ when developing a test procedure 

for ‘‘commercial-style’’ cooking tops or 

standard consumer gas cooking tops 

with higher burner input rates. The 

California IOUs stated that they believe 

the ASTM test procedure is applicable 

for higher burner input rates because the 

energy input rate of the equipment does 

not significantly impact the measured 

cooking energy efficiency under this test 

procedure. (California IOUs, STD No. 11 

at p. 2).13 Additionally, Whirlpool 

stated that the current test block in 

Appendix I would not be appropriate 

for large burners with high burner input 

rates, as the diameter of the burner 

flame would be larger than the diameter 

of the 9-inch test block. Whirlpool also 

stated that for safety and energy 

efficiency reasons, consumers are 

instructed to match the pot size to the 

burner. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 2) 

Both AHAM and Whirlpool commented 

that a test procedure should be 

developed to address commercial-style 

cooking products if DOE plans to 

evaluate them in a standards analysis. 

(AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 2; Whirlpool, 

STD No. 13 at p. 1) 

The ASTM F1521–12 test method for 

commercial cooking tops, suggested for 

use by the California IOUs, is similar to 

the IEC 60350–2 CD test method DOE 

considered in the January 2013 NOPR. 

The primary difference between the 

ASTM and IEC test methods is that the 

ASTM method only includes 

measurement at the full-energy input 

rate of the surface unit while the IEC 

water heating method also includes 

measurement during a simmering 

period at a calculated turndown 

temperature. In addition, ASTM F1521– 

12 specifies a water load that is 

approximately two times heavier than 

the largest test load specified in IEC 

60350–2 CD. Based on DOE’s evaluation 

of the IEC water heating test method for 

cooking tops as discussed in section 

III.C.2, DOE is not considering a waterheating test method for gas surface units 

with higher input rates because this test 

method has been shown to be less 

repeatable and reproducible than DOE’s 

proposed hybrid test block test method. 

In a review of consumer gas cooking 

products on the market, DOE found that 

the majority of surface units on cooking 

tops or ranges marketed as commercialstyle were rated higher than 14,000 Btu/ 

h. Typical ratings for commercial-style 

gas surface units ranged from 15,000 

Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/h. Conversely, the 

majority of surface units on standard gas 

cooking tops or ranges were rated below 

14,000 Btu/h. However, many of the 

surveyed standard gas cooking tops and 

ranges had a single surface unit rated at 

a higher input rate (i.e., above 14,000 

Btu/h) to be used for rapid boiling or 

cooking of a larger food load. DOE also 

noted that manufacturer product 

literature for all gas cooking tops and 

ranges reviewed specifies that the 

surface unit gas flame be adjusted to the 

size of the pot or pan. 

Considering these factors, DOE 

decided to evaluate the effects of 

different test block sizes on the 

efficiency and combustion completion 

of surface units with high input rates 

using the test methods and hybrid test 

block configuration described in section 

III.C. Table III.20 lists the diameters, 

heights, weights, and heat capacities of 

the four hybrid test block sizes DOE 

considered for this testing. DOE 

evaluated the surface units with the 

proposed 9-inch test block as described 

in section III.C.3 and derived the larger 

investigative test block dimensions and 

heat capacities from the range of largersized cookware specified in IEC 60350– 

2 CD. The test block diameters were 

those specified in IEC 60350–2 CD, and 

the heights of the test blocks were 

calculated so that the overall heat 

capacities matched those of the water 

loads. 

TABLE III.20—HYBRID TEST BLOCK SIZES INVESTIGATED FOR GAS COOKING TOPS WITH HIGH SURFACE UNIT INPUT

RATES

Test block component Diameter 

(inches) 

Height 

(inches) 

Weight 

(lbs) 

Specific heat 

(Btu/lb-°F) 

Heat capacity 

(Btu/ °F) 

Stainless Steel Base ............................................................ 9 0.25 4.28 0.11 0.47 

Aluminum Body .................................................................... 9 2.72 16.85 0.23 3.87 

Total .............................................................................. 9 2.97 21.13 0.21 4.34 

Stainless Steel Base ............................................................ 10.6 0.25 6.21 0.11 0.65 

Aluminum Body .................................................................... 10.6 3.48 29.95 0.23 6.89 

Total .............................................................................. 10.6 3.73 36.16 0.21 7.54 

Stainless Steel Base ............................................................ 11.8 0.25 7.90 0.11 0.87 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71912 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14Flame quality refers to the shape of the flame, 

its sharpness, and its color. Mostly yellow, soft, 

flickering flame tips may indicate insufficient 

secondary air and incomplete combustion. 

TABLE III.20—HYBRID TEST BLOCK SIZES INVESTIGATED FOR GAS COOKING TOPS WITH HIGH SURFACE UNIT INPUT

RATES—Continued 

Test block component Diameter 

(inches) 

Height 

(inches) 

Weight 

(lbs) 

Specific heat 

(Btu/lb-°F) 

Heat capacity 

(Btu/ °F) 

Aluminum Body .................................................................... 11.8 3.49 37.13 0.23 8.54 

Total .............................................................................. 11.8 3.74 45.03 0.21 9.41 

Stainless Steel Base ............................................................ 13 0.25 9.27 0.11 1.02 

Aluminum Body .................................................................... 13 3.48 45.04 0.23 10.36 

Total .............................................................................. 13 3.73 54.31 0.21 11.38 

To select the appropriate block 

diameter for testing gas surface units 

with higher input rates, DOE evaluated 

cooking efficiency and the carbon 

monoxide (CO) emitted during the 

heating-up period of the test (i.e., when 

the surface unit was set to its maximum 

setting). A high concentration of CO 

would indicate incomplete combustion 

and suggest that the test block was 

improperly sized. DOE also evaluated 

the quality 14 of the flame, the size of the 

flame in relation to the test block, and 

the degree to which the flames 

impinged on the block in order to 

determine the appropriate test block 

size for gas surface units with high 

input rates. DOE conducted testing on 

the highest-rated surface unit for four 

commercial-style gas cooking tops and 

one standard gas cooking top with a 

single higher-input rate surface unit. 

The cooking efficiency was measured 

using the same proposed test method 

described in section III.C, but with the 

test block sizes listed in Table III.20. 

The CO sample was collected using the 

test method specified in the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI) 

Standard Z21.1–2010, ‘‘Household 

Cooking Gas Appliances’’ (ANSI Z21.1– 

2010), which measures the percent of 

CO in an air-free sample. The CO 

sample was measured at 5 minutes after 

the surface unit was first set at its 

maximum setting and loaded with the 

relevant test block. 

Based on this testing, DOE initially 

eliminated the 13-inch test block from 

consideration because the block 

overhung the grates of the tested units 

and significantly limited secondary 

airflow to the burner ports. As a result, 

DOE focused its investigation on 

cooking efficiency and CO emissions for 

the 9-inch, 10.6-inch and 11.8-inch test 

blocks. Figure III.3 shows measured 

cooking efficiency and Figure III.4 

shows the measured CO emissions 

during the initial heating phase of the 

test for each gas surface unit tested. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71913 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP03DE14.003</GPH>

> u 

40.0% 

35.0% 

s: 

.~ 30.0% u 

5: 

:25.0% 

s: 

::;;: 

g 20.0% 

u 

:!::! 

s: 15.0% :::> 

QJ 

u 

Ill 10.0% -.... 

::I 

V) 

5.0% 

0.0% 

9 10.6 

Block Diameter (in.) 

11.8 

D Standard Residential Unit, Sealed, 20k Btu/hr 

Ill Commercial-Style Unit A, Sealed, 18k Btu/hr 

0 Commercial-Style Unit B, Open, 23k Btu/hr 

I]) Commercial-Style Unit C, Sealed, 18k Btu/hr 

m Commercial-Style Unit D, Open 25k Btu/hr 

Figure 111.3 Gas Surface Unit Cooking Efficiency by Test Block Diameter 
71914 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15Measured cooking efficiencies with the 10.5- 

inch test block were, on average, 0.78 percentage 

points less than efficiencies measured with the 

10.6-inch test block. 

The test results demonstrate that 

efficiency alone is not a good indicator 

of the suitability of a test block for a 

given gas surface unit input rate, as 

efficiency increases consistently with 

increasing test block size. However, the 

low efficiency measured with the 9-inch 

test block for each surface unit also 

suggests that surface units with high 

input rates are designed to be used with 

cookware of a larger diameter when at 

the maximum setting. For two of the 

sealed surface units, during tests with 

the 9-inch test block, flames impinged 

on the sides of the test block when the 

surface unit was set at the maximum 

setting. According to the user manuals, 

the setting should be adjusted so that 

the flame only impinges on the bottom 

of the test block. 

CO levels also generally increased 

with increasing test block diameter, 

suggesting that the 11.8-inch test block 

was not representative of a food load 

designed to be used with cooking tops 

having surface units with higher input 

rates. The maximum concentration of 

carbon monoxide allowed by ANSI 

Z21.1–2010 is 0.08 percent in an air-free 

sample. One cooking top exhibited 

lower CO levels with the 11.8-inch 

block, but this is likely related to the 

low profile and configuration of the 

particular cooking top’s grates. 

Considering the efficiency results, CO 

emissions, and flame characteristics, as 

discussed above, DOE concluded that 

the 10.6-inch test block was most 

representative of a food load designed to 

be used with a high input rate surface 

unit. 

DOE also examined the typical 

diameters of cookware items that are 

compatible with use on higher input 

rate gas burners. These cookware items 

are generally higher-cost products 

designed with thicker gauge material 

and often heavier-duty disk bases to 

prevent scorching. Based on DOE’s 

review of 100 ‘‘premium’’ cookware 

diameters currently available on the 

market, the average diameter is between 

10 and 11 inches. Because a 10.5-inch 

diameter is a standard size in the United 

States, DOE decided to reduce the 10.6- 

inch test block diameter to 10.5 

inches.15

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

is proposing to amend sections 2.7 and 

3.1.2 of Appendix I in the SNOPR to 

require a 10.5-inch hybrid test block, 

with the dimensions and heat capacities 

listed in Table III.21, for use with gas 

surface units having burner input rates 

greater than 14,000 Btu/h. Although 

DOE’s investigative testing was 

performed without the use of thermal 

grease, DOE is also proposing to amend 

Appendix I to require the use of thermal 

grease with the hybrid test block for all 

cooking top product classes, including 

gas. Preliminary tests conducted by DOE 

suggest that measured efficiency for gas 

cooking products will not significantly 

change with the addition of thermal 

grease. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP03DE14.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71915 

16For ovens that can be operated with or without 

forced convection, the average of the energy 

consumption for these two modes is used. For selfclean mode, the test procedure in Appendix I 

assumes an average of 4 self-cleaning operations per 

year. 

17However, DOE noted that many gas ranges, 

while marketed as commercial- or professional-style 

and having multiple surface units with high input 

rates, did not have a gas oven with a high input 

rate. 

TABLE III.21—PROPOSED TEST BLOCK PARAMETERS FOR GAS SURFACE UNITS WITH HIGH INPUT RATES

Test block component Diameter 

(inches) 

Height 

(inches) 

Weight 

(lbs) 

Specific heat 

(Btu/lb-°F) 

Heat capacity 

(Btu/ °F) 

Stainless Steel Base ............................................................ 10.5 0.25 6.09 0.11 0.67 

Aluminum Body .................................................................... 10.5 3.48 29.39 0.23 6.76 

Total .............................................................................. 10.5 3.73 35.48 0.21 7.43 

2. Gas Ovens With Input Rates Greater 

Than 22,500 Btu/h 

The current active mode test 

procedure for conventional ovens 

involves setting the temperature control 

for the normal baking cooking cycle 

such that the temperature inside the 

oven is 325 ± 5 °F higher than the room 

ambient air temperature (77 ± 9 °F). An 

8.5 pound (6.25-inch diameter) 

cylindrical anodized aluminum test 

block is then heated in the oven from 

ambient room air temperature ± 4 °F 

until the test block temperature has 

increased 234 °F above its initial 

temperature. If an oven permits baking 

by either forced convection by using a 

fan, or without forced convection, the 

oven is tested using the procedure 

described above in each of those two 

cooking modes. After the baking test(s), 

if the oven is equipped with a selfcleaning function, the oven is 

additionally set for the self-cleaning 

process in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instruction and allowed 

to run until completion. The measured 

energy consumption during these test 

cycles is used to calculate the cooking 

efficiency and energy factor.16

In response to the February 2014 RFI, 

the California IOUs recommended that 

DOE refer to ASTM F1496–13, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Performance 

of Convection Ovens’’ when developing 

a test procedure for commercial-style 

gas ovens or standard gas ovens with 

higher input rates. California IOUs 

stated that this test method is applicable 

to half-size commercial convection 

ovens. According to the California IOUs, 

a half-size commercial convection oven 

may be similar to a standard, consumer 

gas oven with a higher burner input 

rate. (California IOUs, STD No. 11 at 

p. 2) 

The ASTM F1496–13 test method for 

convection ovens involves calibrating 

the temperature control for the normal 

bake cooking cycle such that the average 

temperature inside the oven is 350 ± 5 

°F. Once the oven is preheated, the 

energy consumption to heat a test load 

to 205 °F is recorded and used to 

calculate a cooking efficiency. DOE 

noted that the test load specified in 

ASTM F1496–13 consists of a foodbased test load (potatoes) that varies 

with oven capacity. The number of pans 

of potatoes could potentially increase or 

decrease depending on the number of 

racks and thus, capacity of the oven. For 

half-size commercial convection ovens, 

ASTM F1496–13 requires a smaller pan 

and fewer potatoes. DOE notes that 

potatoes and other food loads may be 

produced in different geographical 

regions and in different conditions, such 

as climate, growing conditions (i.e., soil 

conditions, watering frequency, 

harvesting time, etc.) that may vary 

throughout the growing seasons even 

within specific geographic regions. DOE 

tentatively concludes, therefore, that a 

food-based test load would not produce 

repeatable and reproducible test results. 

As a result, DOE is not considering 

incorporating test methods based on 

ASTM F1496–13. 

In a review of the consumer gas ovens 

available on the U.S. market, DOE 

observed that standard gas ovens 

typically have an input rate of 16,000 to 

18,000 Btu/h. Gas ovens marketed as 

commercial-style typically have input 

rates ranging from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/ 

h.17 Additional review of both the 

standard and commercial-style gas oven 

cavities indicated that there is 

significant overlap in oven cavity 

volume between the two oven types. 

Standard (single) gas oven cavities 

ranged from 2.5 to 5.6 cubic feet and 

commercial-style gas oven (single) 

cavities ranged from 3.0 to 6.0 cubic 

feet. Sixty percent of the commercialstyle models surveyed had cavity 

volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 cubic feet 

while fifty percent of the standard 

models had cavity volumes between 4.0 

and 5.0 cubic feet. The primary 

differentiating factor between the two 

oven types was burner input rate, which 

is greater than 22,500 Btu/h for 

commercial-style gas ovens. In order to 

develop an appropriate test block size 

for gas ovens with higher input rates, 

DOE investigated the effect of increasing 

oven test block size on oven cooking 

efficiency. DOE sought to determine 

whether a larger test block might be 

more representative of the type of loads 

used with gas ovens with higher input 

rates. 

DOE evaluated two test block sizes for 

use with the high input rate gas ovens: 

The 6.25-inch aluminum test block used 

in the existing DOE test procedure and 

a 9-inch diameter aluminum test block, 

approximately 3 inches high and 

weighing 19 pounds. Each test block 

was finished with an anodic black 

coating with a minimum thickness of 

0.001 inch, as specified in the existing 

DOE test procedure in Appendix I. DOE 

selected three gas ovens marketed as 

commercial-style for testing as well as a 

standard gas oven for comparison. Each 

oven was tested twice, once with the 

6.25-inch test block and once with the 

9-inch test block using the test methods 

specified in the existing DOE test 

procedure. The resulting cooking 

efficiencies are presented in Table III.22. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71916 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18For multiple ovens, Appendix I specifies that 

the energy consumption and cooking efficiency be 

calculated as the average of each individual oven. 

TABLE III.22—GAS OVEN COOKING EFFICIENCY FOR MULTIPLE TEST BLOCK SIZES

Type Input rate 

(Btu/h) 

Width 

(inches) 

Cavity volume 

(cubic feet) 

6.25-inch 

test block— 

cooking 

efficiency 

(%) 

9-inch 

test block— 

cooking 

efficiency 

(%) 

Ratio of 

efficiencies 

Commercial-Style Oven A ....................... 28000 36 5.3 4.3 8.1 1.86 

Commercial-Style Oven B ....................... 30000 36 5.4 3.9 7.7 1.98 

Commercial-Style Oven C ....................... 23500 30 4.4 5.2 9.5 1.85 

Standard ................................................... 18000 30 5 7.6 14.1 1.87 

While cooking efficiency did increase 

with the larger test block, it scaled by 

approximately the same factor (1.9) 

regardless of input rate or capacity, or 

whether the oven was marketed as 

commercial-style. The relatively low 

cooking efficiencies for ovens indicate 

that the thermal energy required to heat 

the test block is only a small percentage 

of the overall energy input to the oven. 

Other thermal losses in the cavity are 

large enough that they account for much 

of the additional oven energy input and 

are not greatly affected by test block 

size. Thus, cooking efficiency measured 

with the larger test block also scales 

relatively closely with the test block 

heat capacity. The ratio of the heat 

capacity of the 9-inch test block to the 

6.25-inch test block is 2.2. To minimize 

the burden of purchasing new test 

blocks, DOE proposes to use the 6.25- 

inch test block specified in the existing 

test procedure to test all gas ovens, 

including gas ovens with input rates 

exceeding 22,500 Btu/h. 

E. Incorporating by Reference AHAM– 

OV–1–2011 for Determination of the 

Volume of Conventional Ovens 

As discussed above in section I.D, 

DOE has initiated an effort to determine 

whether to amend the current energy 

conservation standards for conventional 

cooking products. As part of any 

amended standards for ovens, if DOE 

determines that cooking efficiency 

varies as a function of oven cavity 

volume, DOE may consider proposing 

standards as a function of oven cavity 

volume. Therefore, DOE is proposing in 

the SNOPR to amend section 3.1.1 of 

Appendix I to include a method for 

determining oven cavity volume. 

In order to develop test methods for 

measuring the oven cavity volume, DOE 

reviewed the industry test standard 

AHAM–OV–1–2011. DOE believes that 

Section 3, ‘‘Definition,’’ section 5.1, 

‘‘General Principles,’’ and section 5.2 

‘‘Overall Volume’’ of AHAM–OV–1– 

2011 provides a repeatable and 

reproducible method to measure cavity 

dimensions and calculate overall 

volume because it provides clear 

definitions of oven characteristics and 

provides tolerances for dimensional 

measurements. Section 5.1 of AHAM– 

OV–1–2011 specifies that if depressions 

or cutouts exist in the cavity wall, 

dimensions are taken from the plane 

representing the largest area of the 

surface. Section 5.1 of AHAM–OV–1– 

2011 also specifies that oven lights, 

racks, and other removable features 

shall be ignored in the overall volume 

calculation, and the volume of nonrectangular cavities is calculated by 

measuring the rectangular portion of the 

cavity and non-rectangular cavity 

separately and adding their volumes 

together. 

The procedure also includes a 

measurement of the oven’s usable space, 

which is the volume inside the oven 

cavity available for the placement of 

food. The usable space is oven-specific 

and determined by measuring either the 

size of the cavity door aperture or the 

distance between barriers, racks, and 

rack supports inside the cavity or on the 

cavity walls. The lesser of these 

dimensions is used to calculate the 

volume of the usable space. DOE is not 

proposing to include the usable space 

measurements (section 5.3 of AHAM– 

OV–1–2011) because the overall cavity 

volume measurement provides a more 

accurate representation of the 

relationship between cavity volume and 

cooking efficiency as measured by the 

DOE test procedure in Appendix I. 

DOE notes that manufacturers may 

already be using AHAM–OV–1–2011 to 

measure the oven cavity volume 

published in marketing materials. 

Additionally, manufacturers provide 

exterior dimensions in the installation 

instructions. Incorporating a cavity 

measurement into Appendix I would, in 

most circumstances, add only the three 

additional measurements of cavity 

height, width, and depth. AHAM–OV– 

1–2011 also gives manufacturers the 

flexibility of selecting measurement 

equipment because the device used for 

measurement is not specified. 

Therefore, DOE expects that measuring 

oven volume according to AHAM–OV– 

1–2011 would not place any significant 

burden on manufacturers. For the 

reasons discussed above, DOE proposes 

to amend section 3.1.1 of Appendix I to 

incorporate by reference Sections 3, 5.1, 

and 5.2 of AHAM–OV–1–2011 for 

measuring the overall oven cavity 

volume. 

F. Conventional Oven Separator 

As part of DOE’s review of products 

available on the market, DOE observed 

one conventional electric oven 

equipped with an oven separator that 

allows for cooking using the entire oven 

cavity in the absence of the separator or, 

if the separator is installed, splitting the 

oven into two smaller cavities that may 

be operated individually with 

independent temperature controls. DOE 

notes that the current test procedure in 

Appendix I includes provisions for 

measuring the energy consumption and 

cooking efficiency of single ovens and 

multiple (separate) ovens,18 but does 

not include provisions for how to test a 

single oven that can be configured as a 

full oven or as two separate smaller 

cavities. As a result, DOE conducted 

testing on this product in each possible 

oven configuration and evaluated the 

cooking efficiency results. The results 

from this testing are presented in Table 

III.23. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71917 

19 DOE pursued amendments to Appendix I 

addressing standby and off mode energy for 

microwave ovens as part of a separate rulemaking. 

The final rule for this microwave oven rulemaking 

published on January 18, 2013. 78 FR 4015. 

TABLE III.23—OVEN COOKING EFFICIENCY RESULTS FOR OVEN SEPARATOR CONFIGURATIONS

Oven configuration Cooking modes Cavity volume 

(cubic feet) 

Cooking 

efficiency 

(%) 

Full Oven (No Oven Separator) ................................... Normal Bake, Forced Convection ................................ 5.9 10.5 

Oven Separator—Upper Cavity .................................... Forced Convection 1 ..................................................... 2.7 16.7 

Oven Separator—Bottom Cavity .................................. Normal Bake, Forced Convection ................................ 3.0 13.2 

1 Upper cavity configuration is only capable of operation in forced convection mode. Normal bake function is not available. 

The test results show that the cooking 

efficiencies in each possible oven 

configuration were measurably 

different, ranging from 10.5 percent for 

the full oven to 16.7 percent for the 

smaller upper cavity. As a result, DOE 

is proposing in the SNOPR that 

conventional ovens equipped with an 

oven separator shall be tested in each 

possible oven configuration (i.e., full 

oven cavity, upper cavity, and lower 

cavity) with the cooking efficiency and 

total annual energy consumption 

averaged. 

G. Standby and Off Mode Test 

Procedure 

EPCA requires that DOE amend its 

test procedures for all covered consumer 

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 

conducted a rulemaking for 

conventional cooking products, 

dishwashers, and dehumidifiers to 

address standby and off mode energy 

consumption.19 In the October 2012 

Final Rule, DOE addressed standby 

mode and off mode energy 

consumption, as well as active mode 

fan-only operation, for conventional 

cooking products. 77 FR 65942 (Oct. 31, 

2012). 

As part of the January 2013 NOPR, 

DOE proposed a change to the definition 

of ‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to 

include induction technologies. DOE 

noted that under this proposed 

definition, induction cooking tops 

would be covered by the standby and off 

mode test procedures adopted in the 

separate test procedure rulemaking. 

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. 78 FR 

6232, 6241 (Jan. 30, 2013). 

AHAM and BSH commented that they 

are not aware of any additional features 

or operational modes for induction 

cooking products and, thus, agree that 

the definitions of standby mode and off 

mode do not require revision. (AHAM, 

TP No. 7 at p. 6; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 

6) Because DOE did not receive any 

comments objecting to the proposed 

determination not to amend the standby 

mode and off mode test methods, and 

for the reasons discussed above, DOE is 

maintaining this determination in the 

SNOPR. 

Similarly, DOE notes that because gas 

cooking products with higher input 

rates are covered under the definition of 

‘‘cooking products’’ in 10 CFR 430.2, 

these products are covered by the 

standby and off mode test procedures 

discussed above. DOE conducted 

standby mode and off mode testing on 

commercial-style units and standard 

units with higher input rates in its test 

sample. Based on this testing, DOE did 

not observe any standby mode or off 

mode operation or features unique to 

these products that would warrant any 

changes to the standby mode and off 

mode test methods established in 

Appendix I section 3.1 by the October 

2012 Final Rule for conventional 

cooking products. 

H. Technical Corrections to the 

Calculation of Derived Results From 

Test Measurements 

DOE notes that section 4 in Appendix 

I, regarding the calculation of derived 

results from test measurements, 

contains a number of references to 

incorrect units of measurement. For 

example, section 4.1.2.1.1 incorrectly 

provides that the annual primary energy 

consumption for cooking, ECO, should 

be expressed in Btus per year for gas 

ovens, instead of kBtu per year. DOE 

proposes in the SNOPR to correct the 

following sections of Appendix I to 

reference the appropriate units: 

4.1.2.1.1, 4.1.2.2.1, 4.1.2.4.3, 4.1.2.5.3, 

4.1.4.1, 4.1.4.2, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.2.2.1, and 

4.2.2.2.2. 

DOE also notes that section 4.2.3.2 in 

Appendix I, regarding the calculation of 

the integrated energy factor for 

conventional electric cooking tops, IRCT, 

uses an incorrect value for the annual 

useful cooking energy output, OCT, of 

527.6 kBtu per year, which is the annual 

useful cooking energy output for gas 

cooking tops. The value of the annual 

useful cooking energy output for electric 

cooking tops should instead be 173.1 

kWh per year. DOE is proposing to 

correct this error in the NOPR. 

I. Headings for Conventional Cooking 

Top Calculations 

DOE notes that the headings for 

sections 4.2 and 4.2.1 in Appendix I 

regarding the calculations for 

conventional cooking tops were 

inadvertently removed. As a result, DOE 

is proposing to add the headings for 

section 4.2 ‘‘Conventional cooking top,’’ 

and section 4.2.1, ‘‘Surface unit cooking 

efficiency’’ to appropriately describe 

these sections. 

J. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

EPCA 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, or 

estimated 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)) 

As part of the January 2013 NOPR, 

DOE tentatively concluded that the 

amended test procedures would 

produce test results that measure the 

energy consumption of cooking tops 

during representative use, and that the 

test procedures would not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 78 FR 6232, 

6242 (Jan. 30, 2013). 

For cooking tops, the test procedure 

proposed in January 2013 NOPR and 

this SNOPR follows the same method 

currently included in Appendix I, but 

would replace the aluminum test blocks 

with hybrid test blocks having thermal 

grease that joins the stainless steel base 

and aluminum body. The SNOPR also 

includes an additional test block size to 

be used for electric cooking top surface 

units with large diameters and gas 

cooking top surface units with higher 

input rates. In the January 2013 NOPR, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DOE estimated that current testing 

represents a cost of approximately $500 

per test for labor, with a one-time 

investment of $2,000 for test equipment 

($1,000 for test blocks and $1,000 for 

instrumentation). 78 FR 6232, 6242 (Jan. 

30, 2013). The proposed reusable test 

blocks in the SNOPR would represent 

an expense of approximately $500 for 

each test block, or $1,500 for a set of 

large, medium, and small diameter test 

blocks. DOE estimated that the thermal 

grease necessary for a set of three tests 

blocks would cost approximately $100 

but due to the need for frequent 

reapplication of the grease, DOE 

increased this estimate to $2,000 

resulting in a total updated one-time 

investment of $4,500 for test equipment. 

Test blocks would need to be replaced 

when they are no longer in tolerance. 

However DOE observed that the test 

blocks were still within the proposed 

tolerance after approximately 100 tests. 

No additional instrumentation would be 

required beyond what is required in the 

current test procedure. DOE stated that 

it does not believe this additional cost 

represents an excessive burden for test 

laboratories or manufacturers given the 

significant investments necessary to 

manufacture, test and market consumer 

appliances. The only additional time 

burden associated with the proposed 

test method is the time required to 

weigh the stainless steel base in 

addition to the aluminum body and to 

apply the thermal grease. This 

additional step in the test procedure 

would increase the test duration by 

about 5 minutes per surface unit. 

AHAM and BSH commented in 

response to the January 2013 NOPR that 

with only one set of test blocks, 

laboratories may only be able to perform 

two surface unit tests per day because 

of the time required to cool the test 

blocks. Accordingly, AHAM and BSH 

stated that it is likely that manufacturers 

and third-party laboratories will 

purchase multiple sets of test blocks to 

be able to run more tests per day. 

AHAM and BSH encouraged DOE to ask 

individual manufacturers and thirdparty test laboratories how many sets of 

test blocks they expect to need in order 

to more fully understand the actual 

burden imposed by the amended 

regulation. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 6; 

BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 6) AHAM and BSH 

also commented that DOE’s test burden 

analysis is based only on certification 

and does not account for the required 

audit testing manufacturers would need 

to do to ensure that certification remains 

representative of production. (AHAM, 

TP No. 7 at p. 6; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 

6) AHAM asked DOE to elaborate more 

on the estimates for some of the costs, 

including whether the costs assume 

each manufacturer would only be 

requiring one set of test blocks. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, TP No. 5 at 

p. 46) 

DOE’s estimates of manufacturer test 

burden in the January 2013 NOPR were 

based on a purchase of a single set of 

test blocks. Manufacturers have the 

option to purchase multiple sets of test 

blocks to be able to run more tests per 

day, but purchasing even four sets 

would entail a onetime expense of 

approximately $10,000. Purchasing 

multiple sets may also extend the 

lifetime of the test blocks because a 

single set would not be used for every 

test. During DOE’s testing and testing at 

a third-party lab, test technicians were 

able to run between five and seven tests 

per day. Given that many cooking tops 

have surface units of varying sizes and 

multiple cooking tops may be set up for 

test in a given day, the test technician 

could alternate which size surface unit 

was tested to allow time for a test block 

to cool, i.e., the technician could test a 

small surface unit with the small test 

block on a different cooking top while 

the large test block is cooling. While 

DOE did not account for any audit 

testing in the SNOPR, issues regarding 

compliance certification testing may be 

addressed as part of any energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. For 

the reasons discussed above, DOE 

concludes, given the small magnitude of 

the proposed changes (both in terms of 

the proposed test blocks, including the 

large test block included in the SNOPR, 

and the time needed for the test), that 

the newly proposed amended test 

procedure for cooking tops will not be 

unreasonably burdensome to conduct. 

As discussed in section III.D.2, DOE is 

proposing for gas ovens to require that 

the existing test block be used for all 

ovens, including both standard 

residential ovens and ovens with high 

input rates. As a result, DOE does not 

expect any increase in testing burden 

compared to the existing test procedure. 

As discussed in section III.E, DOE is 

also proposing to incorporate by 

reference AHAM–OV–1–2011 for 

measuring the overall oven cavity 

volume. DOE estimates that it would 

take on the order of one-half to one hour 

to conduct the cavity volume 

measurement for a single oven, and $50 

to $100 per test for labor. Additionally, 

because manufacturers may already be 

using the AHAM procedure to measure 

oven cavity volume and because 

manufacturers already provide exterior 

dimensions in the installation 

instructions, DOE does not anticipate 

this measurement to be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. As discussed in 

section III.F, DOE is also proposing that 

conventional ovens equipped with an 

oven separator be tested in each 

possible oven configuration. DOE notes, 

based on its testing, that this may add 

two oven tests for the additional cavity 

configurations, and add approximately 

$2,750 for labor. DOE does not believe 

this additional cost represents an 

excessive burden for test laboratories or 

manufacturers given the significant 

investments necessary to manufacture, 

test and market consumer appliances. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) 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. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 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 this 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 and gas cooking 

products with higher input rates. The 

proposed rule would also include a test 

method for conventional ovens with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71919 

20 DOE considered different configurations of the 

same basic model (where surface units were placed 

in different positions on the cooking top) as unique 

models. 

21Estimated average revenue is based on financial 

information provided for the small businesses in 

reports provided by Dun and Bradstreet. 

oven separators and incorporate by 

reference a test method to measure oven 

cavity volume. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considers a business entity to be 

a small business, if, together with its 

affiliates, it employs less than a 

threshold number of workers or earns 

less than the average annual receipts 

specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 

threshold values set forth in these 

regulations use size standards and codes 

established by the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

that are available at: http://

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. The 

threshold number for NAICS 

classification code 335221, titled 

‘‘Household Cooking Appliance 

Manufacturing,’’ is 750 employees; this 

classification includes manufacturers of 

residential conventional cooking 

products. 

Most of the manufacturers supplying 

conventional cooking products are large 

multinational corporations. DOE 

surveyed the AHAM member directory 

to identify manufacturers of residential 

conventional cooking products. DOE 

then consulted publicly-available data, 

purchased company reports from 

vendors such as Dun and Bradstreet, 

and contacted manufacturers, where 

needed, to determine if they meet the 

SBA’s definition of a ‘‘small business 

manufacturing facility’’ and have their 

manufacturing facilities located within 

the United States. Based on this 

analysis, DOE estimates that there are 

nine small businesses that manufacture 

conventional cooking products covered 

by the proposed tests procedure 

amendments. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the proposed rule would 

not have a significant impact on small 

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 

surface units and surface units with 

higher input rates that will be used to 

develop and test compliance with any 

future energy conservation standards 

that may be established by DOE. The 

proposed 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 $4,500–$10,000. 

Additionally, DOE estimates a cost of 

approximately $23,900 for an average 

small manufacturer to test a full product 

line of induction surface units and 

surface units with high input rates not 

currently covered by the test procedure. 

This estimate assumes $500 per test, as 

described in section III.J, with up to 48 

total tests per manufacturer needed, 

assuming 11 models 20 with either four 

or six individual tests per cooking top 

model. This cost is small (0.15 percent) 

compared to the average annual revenue 

of the nine identified small businesses, 

which DOE estimates to be over $16 

million.21 These tests follow the same 

methodology and can be conducted in 

the same facilities used for the current 

energy testing of conventional cooking 

tops, so there would be no additional 

facilities costs required by the proposed 

rule. 

The incorporation by reference of 

AHAM–OV–1–2011 to measure oven 

cavity volume and the addition of a test 

method to measure conventional ovens 

with an oven separator will not 

significantly impact small 

manufacturers under the applicable 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. DOE estimates a cost of $4,500 for 

an average small manufacturer to 

measure the cavity volume of its entire 

product offerings which is only 0.03 

percent of the average annual revenue of 

the nine identified small businesses. 

This estimate assumes $100 per test as 

described in section III.1 with up to 44 

tests per manufacturer. Additionally, no 

small conventional cooking product 

manufacturer, as defined by the SBA, 

offers a product with an oven separator. 

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 a 

regulatory 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 1995 

Manufacturers of covered 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 

applicable DOE test procedure, 

including any amendments adopted for 

that test procedure. 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 collectionof-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 1969 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

test procedure amendments that it 

expects will be used to develop and 

implement future energy conservation 

standards for 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 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71920 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

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 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 

(codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect 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-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed 

rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

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 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988) that this regulation 

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, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

this 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 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

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. 

The 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71921 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed rule incorporates test 

methods contained in the AHAM OV– 

1–2011 standard, ‘‘Procedures for the 

Determination and Expression of the 

Volume of Household Microwave and 

Conventional Ovens’’. DOE has 

evaluated this standard and is unable to 

conclude whether this industry 

standard fully complies with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA, (i.e., that it was developed in a 

manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

DOE will consult with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact on competition 

of using the methods contained in this 

standard prior to prescribing a final 

rule. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this SNOPR. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

one copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71922 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although 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. Hybrid Test Blocks 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

require the use of hybrid test blocks 

with a layer of thermal grease for testing 

all cooking tops, including the potential 

burden associated with the requirement 

for such new test equipment. (See 

section III.C.1 and III.C.5) 

2. Typical Cookware Thickness 

DOE seeks comment on the typical 

thickness of cookware compatible with 

induction cooking tops and gas cooking 

tops with high surface unit input rates. 

(See section III.C.1) 

3. Additional Test Block Size for 

Electric Resistance and Induction 

Surface Units 

DOE invites comment on whether the 

proposed addition of a test block size of 

10.5 inches in diameter for largerdiameter electric cooking tops will be 

sufficient to capture the range of surface 

unit diameters currently available on 

the market. (See section III.C.3) 

4. Non-Circular and Flexible Electric 

Surface Units 

DOE invites comments on whether 

using the smallest dimension of a noncircular electric surface unit is 

appropriate for determining the proper 

test block size. DOE also invites 

comments on its proposal to test surface 

units with flexible concentric sizes at 

each unique size setting and full-surface 

induction cooking tops using each of 

three test block sizes, with the test block 

placed in the center of the usable 

cooking surface during each test. DOE 

also welcomes comments on its 

proposal to not require testing of electric 

and gas cooking top surface units, such 

as bridge zones, warming plates, grills 

and griddles, in determining cooking 

top efficiency. (See section III.C.4) 

5. Thermal Grease Characteristics 

DOE seeks comment on the amount, 

application technique, and thermal 

properties of the thermal grease 

specified for use between the stainless 

steel base and aluminum body of the 

hybrid test blocks. Specifically, DOE 

seeks comment on its proposal to 

require a thermal grease having a 

thermal conductivity of at least 1.73 

Btu/hr-ft-°F (1.0 W/m-K), applied evenly 

to the contacting surfaces of the base 

and body. (See section III.C.5) 

6. Clarification of the Reduced Energy 

Input Setting 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to clarify the ‘‘maximum 

energy input rate’’ specified in the 

cooking tops test procedure in 

Appendix I for determining the reduced 

energy input setting. (See section III.C.7) 

7. Gas Cooking Top Surface Units With 

Input Rates >14,000 Btu/h 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

require the use of a 10.5-inch hybrid test 

block for testing all gas surface units 

rated above 14,000 Btu/h, including 

additional data on the efficiency and 

combustion characteristics of cooking 

top surface units with high input rates. 

(See section III.D.1) 

8. Gas Ovens With High Input Rates 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

require the use of the test block 

currently specified in Appendix I for 

testing all ovens that are covered by the 

definition of conventional ovens, 

including commercial-style ovens or 

any ovens rated above 22,500 Btu/h. 

(See section III.D.2) 

9. Test Method To Measure Oven Cavity 

Volume 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

incorporate by reference AHAM–OV–1– 

2011 to measure the overall oven cavity 

volume. (See section III.E). 

10. Test Method for Conventional Ovens 

With an Oven Separator 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

amendments to require that 

conventional ovens equipped with an 

oven separator be tested in each 

possible oven configuration (i.e., full 

oven cavity, upper cavity, and lower 

cavity) with the results averaged. (See 

section III.F). 

11. Technical Corrections 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

amendments to correct the units of 

measurement in sections 4.1.2.1.1, 

4.1.2.2.1, 4.1.2.4.3, 4.1.2.5.3, 4.1.4.1, 

4.1.4.2, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.2.2.1, and 4.2.2.2.2. 

DOE also requests comment on the 

proposed amendments to correct the 

value of the annual useful cooking 

energy output for electric cooking tops 

referenced in section 4.2.3.2. (See 

section III.H) 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

24, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 430.2 is amended by 

revising the definition for ‘‘conventional 

cooking top’’ to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Conventional cooking top means a 

class of kitchen ranges and ovens which 

is a household cooking appliance 

consisting of a horizontal surface 

containing one or more surface units 

which utilize a gas flame, electric 

resistance heating, or electric inductive 

heating. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.3 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (h)(7) as (h)(8) 

and adding new paragraph (h)(7) to read 

as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(7) AHAM OV–1–2011, (‘‘AHAM OV– 

1’’), Procedures for the Determination 

and Expression of the Volume of 

Household Microwave and 

Conventional Ovens, (2011), IBR 

approved for appendix I to subpart B. 

* * * * * 

Appendix I—[Amended] 

■ 4. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 

is amended: 

■ a. By revising the Note; 

■ b. In section 1. Definitions, by: 

■ i. Revising section 1.1; 

■ ii. Redesignating sections 1.2 through 

1.19 as sections 1.3 through 1.20, 

respectively; and 

■ iii. Adding section 1.2; 

■ c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71923 

■ i. Revising sections 2.6, 2.7, 2.7.2 and 

2.7.3; 

■ ii. Redesignating sections 2.7.4 and 

2.7.5 as sections 2.7.5 and 2.7.6, 

respectively; and 

■ iii. Adding sections 2.7.4 and 2.7.7; 

■ d. By revising section 3. Test Methods 

and Measurements 

■ e. In section 4. Calculation of Derived 

Results From Test Measurements, by: 

■ i. Revising sections 4.1.2.1.1, 4.1.2.2.1, 

4.1.2.4.3, 4.1.2.5, 4.1.2.5.1, 4.1.2.5.2, 

4.1.2.5.3. 4.1.3.2, 4.1.4.1, 4.1.4.2, 4.2.1.1, 

4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3, 4.2.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2.2, and 

4.2.3.2; and 

■ ii. Adding sections 4.2 and 4.2.1. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

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 

Ovens 

Note: Any 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 related to standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption of 

conventional ranges, conventional cooking 

tops (except for induction cooking products), 

conventional ovens, and microwave ovens, 

and any representation made after [Insert 

date 180 days after the final rule is published 

in the Federal Register] related to any energy 

consumption of induction cooking products, 

must be based upon results generated under 

this test procedure. 

Upon the compliance date(s) of any energy 

conservation standard(s) for conventional 

ranges, conventional cooking tops, 

conventional ovens, and microwave ovens, 

use of the applicable provisions of this test 

procedure to demonstrate compliance with 

the energy conservation standard will also be 

required. 

1. Definitions 

1.1 Active mode means a mode in which 

the product is connected to a mains power 

source, has been activated, and is performing 

the main function of producing heat by 

means of a gas flame, electric resistance 

heating, electric inductive heating, or 

microwave energy, or circulating air 

internally or externally to the cooking 

product. Delay start mode is a one-off, userinitiated, short-duration function that is 

associated with an active mode. 

1.2 AHAM–OV–1 means the test standard 

published by the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers titled, ‘‘Procedures 

for the Determination and Expression of the 

Volume of Household Microwave and 

Conventional Ovens,’’ Standard OV–1–2011 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). 

* * * * * 

2. Test Conditions 

* * * * * 

2.6 Normal nonoperating temperature. All 

areas of the appliance to be tested shall attain 

the normal nonoperating temperature, as 

defined in section 1.13 of this appendix, 

before any testing begins. The equipment for 

measuring the applicable normal 

nonoperating temperature shall be as 

described in sections 2.9.3.1, 2.9.3.2, 2.9.3.3, 

and 2.9.3.4 of this appendix, as applicable. 

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-ft2-°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 Btuin/h-ft2-°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 produced to be flat to 

within 0.002 inch (0.051 mm) TIR (total 

indicator reading). The bottom of the test 

block body and top and bottom of the test 

block base shall not exceed .004 (0.102 mm) 

TIR at the start of testing. Determine the 

actual weight of each test block, test block 

body, and test block base with a scale with 

an accuracy as indicated in section 2.9.5 of 

this appendix. 

* * * * * 

2.7.2 Small test block for conventional 

cooking top. The small test block shall 

comprise a body and separate base, between 

which a 10–12 g layer of thermally 

conductive grease shall be applied. The small 

test block body, W2, shall be 6.25 ± 0.05 

inches (158.8 ± 1.3 mm) in diameter, 

approximately 2.5 inches (64 mm) high and 

shall weigh 7.5 ± 0.1 lbs (3.40 ± 0.05 kg). The 

small test block base, W3, shall be 6.25 ± 0.05 

inches (158.8 ± 1.3 mm) in diameter, 

approximately 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) high and 

shall weigh 2.2 ± 0.1 lbs (1.00 ± 0.05 kg). The 

small test block body shall not be fixed to the 

base, and shall be centered over the base for 

testing. 

2.7.3 Medium test block for conventional 

cooking top. The large test block shall 

comprise a body and separate base, between 

which a 20–25 g layer of thermally 

conductive grease shall be applied. The 

medium test block body for the conventional 

cooking top, W4, shall be 9 ± 0.05 inches 

(228.6 ± 1.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 

2.7 inches (69 mm) high and shall weigh 16.9 

± 0.1 lbs (7.67 ± 0.05 kg). The medium test 

block base, W5, shall be 9 ± 0.05 inches 

(228.6 ± 1.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 

0.25 inches (6.4 mm) high and shall weigh 

4.3 ± 0.1 lbs (1.95 ± 0.05 kg). The medium 

test block body shall not be fixed to the base, 

and shall be centered over the base for 

testing. 

2.7.4 Large test block for conventional 

cooking top. The large test block shall 

comprise a body and separate base, between 

which a 28–34 g layer of thermally 

conductive grease shall be applied. The large 

test block body for the conventional cooking 

top, W6, shall be 10.5 ± 0.05 inches (266.7 ± 

1.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 3.5 

inches (88.9 mm) high and shall weigh 29.4 

± 0.1 lbs (13.33 ± 0.05 kg). The large test 

block base, W7, shall be 10.5 ± 0.05 inches 

(266.7 ± 1.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 

0.25 inches (6.4 mm) high and shall weigh 

6.1 ± 0.1 lbs (2.77 ± 0.05 kg). The large test 

block body shall not be fixed to the base, and 

shall be centered over the base for testing. 

* * * * * 

2.7.7 Thermal grease. The thermal grease 

used for each test block shall have a thermal 

conductivity of greater than or equal to 1.73 

Btu/hr-ft-°F (1.0 W/m-K). The thermal grease 

shall be applied evenly so that it covers the 

contacting surfaces of the body and base 

completely. Pressure shall be applied when 

joining the two pieces together. After six 

tests, the layer of thermal grease shall be 

removed and a new layer shall be reapplied. 

If the aluminum body slides off the stainless 

steel base during the test, the test shall be 

terminated and thermal grease shall be 

reapplied to the test block. 

* * * * * 

3. Test Methods and Measurements 

3.1. Test methods. 

3.1.1 Conventional oven. Perform a test by 

establishing the testing conditions set forth in 

section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix 

and turn off the gas flow to the conventional 

cooking top, if so equipped. Before beginning 

the test, the conventional oven shall be at its 

normal non-operating temperature as defined 

in section 1.13 and described in section 2.6 

of this appendix. Set the conventional oven 

test block W1 approximately in the center of 

the usable baking space. If there is a selector 

switch for selecting the mode of operation of 

the oven, set it for normal baking. If an oven 

permits baking by either forced convection 

by using a fan, or without forced convection, 

the oven is to be tested in each of those two 

modes. The oven shall remain on for one 

complete thermostat ‘‘cut-off/cut-on’’ of the 

electrical resistance heaters or gas burners 

after the test block temperature has increased 

234 °F (130 °C) above its initial temperature. 

3.1.1.1 Self-cleaning operation of a 

conventional oven. Establish the test 

conditions set forth in section 2, Test 

Conditions, of this appendix. Turn off the gas 

flow to the conventional cooking top. The 

temperature of the conventional oven shall 

be its normal non-operating temperature as 

defined in section 1.13 and described in 

section 2.6 of this appendix. Then set the 

conventional oven’s self-cleaning process in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. If the self-cleaning process is 

adjustable, use the average time 

recommended by the manufacturer for a 

moderately soiled oven. 

3.1.1.2 Conventional oven standby mode 

and off mode power. Establish the standby 

mode and off mode testing conditions set 

forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this 

appendix. For conventional ovens that take 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71924 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

some time to enter a stable state from a 

higher power state as discussed in Section 5, 

Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second 

Edition) (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3), allow sufficient time for the 

conventional oven to reach the lower power 

state before proceeding with the test 

measurement. Follow the test procedure as 

specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 

62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each 

possible mode as described in 3.1.1.2.1 and 

3.1.1.2.2 of this appendix. For units in which 

power varies as a function of displayed time 

in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 

at the end of the stabilization period 

specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 

62301 (First Edition), and use the average 

power approach described in Section 5, 

Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First 

Edition), but with a single test period of 10 

minutes +0/¥2 sec after an additional 

stabilization period until the clock time 

reaches 3:33. 

3.1.1.2.1 If the conventional oven has an 

inactive mode, as defined in section 1.12 of 

this appendix, measure and record the 

average inactive mode power of the 

conventional oven, PIA, in watts. 

3.1.1.2.2 If the conventional oven has an 

off mode, as defined in section 1.14 of this 

appendix, measure and record the average off 

mode power of the conventional oven, POM, 

in watts. 

3.1.1.3 Conventional oven cavity volume. 

Measure the oven cavity volume according to 

the test procedure specified in Sections 3, 5.1 

and 5.2 of AHAM–OV–1 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). 

3.1.2 Conventional cooking top. Establish 

the test conditions set forth in section 2, Test 

Conditions, of this appendix. Turn off the gas 

flow to the conventional oven(s), if so 

equipped. The temperature of the 

conventional cooking top shall be its normal 

nonoperating temperature as defined in 

section 1.13 and described in section 2.6 of 

this appendix. Set the test block in the center 

of the surface unit under test. The small test 

block, W2 and W3, shall be used on electric 

surface units with a smallest dimension of 7 

inches (178 mm) or less. The medium test 

block, W4 and W5, shall be used on electric 

surface units with a smallest dimension over 

7 inches (178 mm) but less than 10 inches 

and on gas surface units with input rates less 

than 14,000 Btu/h. The large test block, W6

and W7, shall be used on electric surface 

units with a smallest dimension of 10 inches 

or greater and on gas surface units with input 

rates greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h. 

Each surface unit shall be tested separately. 

For electric surface units with flexible 

concentric sizes, each unique size setting 

must be tested individually with the 

appropriate test block based on the outer 

dimensions of the surface unit corresponding 

to that particular setting. 

Full-surface induction cooking tops must 

be tested three times, once with each test 

block size (small, medium, and large). For 

each test, the test block shall be placed in the 

center of the usable area of the cooking 

surface, equidistant from any cooking top 

boundaries. The center of the usable cooking 

surface may be offset from the geometric 

center of the cooking top due to surface unit 

controls or a display. 

Turn on the surface unit under test and set 

its energy input rate to the maximum setting. 

When the test block reaches 144 °F (80 °C) 

above its initial test block temperature, 

immediately reduce the energy input rate to 

25 ± 5 percent of the maximum energy input 

rate. The energy input rate at the reduced 

setting is calculated as the total energy 

consumed at the reduced setting divided by 

the time operated at the reduced setting. The 

maximum energy input rate is the total 

energy consumed at the maximum setting 

divided by the time operated at the 

maximum setting. After 15 ± 0.1 minutes at 

the reduced energy setting, turn off the 

surface unit under test. 

3.1.2.1 Conventional cooking top standby 

mode and off mode power. Establish the 

standby mode and off mode testing 

conditions set forth in section 2, Test 

Conditions, of this appendix. For 

conventional cooktops that take some time to 

enter a stable state from a higher power state 

as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, 

Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

allow sufficient time for the conventional 

cooking top to reach the lower power state 

before proceeding with the test measurement. 

Follow the test procedure as specified in 

Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 

(Second Edition) for testing in each possible 

mode as described in sections 3.1.2.1.1 and 

3.1.2.1.2 of this appendix. For units in which 

power varies as a function of displayed time 

in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 

at the end of the stabilization period 

specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 

62301 (First Edition), and use the average 

power approach described in Section 5, 

Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First 

Edition), but with a single test period of 10 

minutes +0/¥2 sec after an additional 

stabilization period until the clock time 

reaches 3:33. 

3.1.2.1.1 If the conventional cooking top 

has an inactive mode, as defined in section 

1.12 of this appendix, measure and record 

the average inactive mode power of the 

conventional cooking top, PIA, in watts. 

3.1.2.1.2 If the conventional cooking top 

has an off mode, as defined in section 1.14 

of this appendix, measure and record the 

average off mode power of the conventional 

cooking top, POM, in watts. 

3.1.3 Conventional range standby mode 

and off mode power. Establish the standby 

mode and off mode testing conditions set 

forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this 

appendix. For conventional ranges that take 

some time to enter a stable state from a 

higher power state as discussed in Section 5, 

Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second 

Edition) (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3), allow sufficient time for the 

conventional range to reach the lower power 

state before proceeding with the test 

measurement. Follow the test procedure as 

specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 

62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each 

possible mode as described in sections 

3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2 of this appendix. For units 

in which power varies as a function of 

displayed time in standby mode, set the 

clock time to 3:23 at the end of the 

stabilization period specified in Section 5, 

Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 (First Edition), 

and use the average power approach 

described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of 

IEC 62301 (First Edition), but with a single 

test period of 10 minutes +0/¥2 sec after an 

additional stabilization period until the clock 

time reaches 3:33. 

3.1.3.1 If the conventional range has an 

inactive mode, as defined in section 1.12 of 

this appendix, measure and record the 

average inactive mode power of the 

conventional range, PIA, in watts. 

3.1.3.2 If the conventional range has an off 

mode, as defined in section 1.14 of this 

appendix, measure and record the average off 

mode power of the conventional range, POM, 

in watts. 

3.1.4 Microwave oven. 

3.1.4.1 Microwave oven test standby mode 

and off mode power. Establish the testing 

conditions set forth in section 2, Test 

Conditions, of this appendix. For microwave 

ovens that drop from a higher power state to 

a lower power state as discussed in Section 

5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 

(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; 

see § 430.3), allow sufficient time for the 

microwave oven to reach the lower power 

state before proceeding with the test 

measurement. Follow the test procedure as 

specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 

62301 (Second Edition). For units in which 

power varies as a function of displayed time 

in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 

and use the average power approach 

described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of 

IEC 62301 (First Edition), but with a single 

test period of 10 minutes +0/¥2 sec after an 

additional stabilization period until the clock 

time reaches 3:33. If a microwave oven is 

capable of operation in either standby mode 

or off mode, as defined in sections 1.18 and 

1.14 of this appendix, respectively, or both, 

test the microwave oven in each mode in 

which it can operate. 

3.2 Test measurements. 

3.2.1 Conventional oven test energy 

consumption. If the oven thermostat controls 

the oven temperature without cycling on and 

off, measure the energy consumed, EO, when 

the temperature of the block reaches TO (TO

is 234 °F (130 °C) above the initial block 

temperature, TI). If the oven thermostat 

operates by cycling on and off, make the 

following series of measurements: Measure 

the block temperature, TA, and the energy 

consumed, EA, or volume of gas consumed, 

VA, at the end of the last ‘‘ON’’ period of the 

conventional oven before the block reaches 

TO. Measure the block temperature, TB, and 

the energy consumed, EB, or volume of gas 

consumed, VB, at the beginning of the next 

‘‘ON’’ period. Measure the block temperature, 

TC, and the energy consumed, EC, or volume 

of gas consumed, VC, at the end of that ‘‘ON’’ 

period. Measure the block temperature, TD, 

and the energy consumed, ED, or volume of 

gas consumed, VD, at the beginning of the 

following ‘‘ON’’ period. Energy 

measurements for EO, EA, EB, EC, and ED

should be expressed in watt-hours (kJ) for 

conventional electric ovens, and volume 

measurements for VA, VB, VC, and VD should 

be expressed in standard cubic feet (L) of gas 

for conventional gas ovens. For a gas oven, 

measure in watt-hours (kJ) any electrical 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71925 

energy, EIO, consumed by an ignition device 

or other electrical components required for 

the operation of a conventional gas oven 

while heating the test block to TO. 

3.2.1.1 Conventional oven average test 

energy consumption. If the conventional 

oven permits baking by either forced 

convection or without forced convection and 

the oven thermostat does not cycle on and 

off, measure the energy consumed with the 

forced convection mode, (EO)1, and without 

the forced convection mode, (EO)2, when the 

temperature of the block reaches TO (TO is 

234 °F (130 °C) above the initial block 

temperature, TI). If the conventional oven 

permits baking by either forced convection or 

without forced convection and the oven 

thermostat operates by cycling on and off, 

make the following series of measurements 

with and without the forced convection 

mode: Measure the block temperature, TA, 

and the energy consumed, EA, or volume of 

gas consumed, VA, at the end of the last 

‘‘ON’’ period of the conventional oven before 

the block reaches TO. Measure the block 

temperature, TB, and the energy consumed, 

EB, or volume of gas consumed, VB, at the 

beginning of the next ‘‘ON’’ period. Measure 

the block temperature, TC, and the energy 

consumed, EC, or volume of gas consumed, 

VC, at the end of that ‘‘ON’’ period. Measure 

the block temperature, TD, and the energy 

consumed, ED, or volume of gas consumed, 

VD, at the beginning of the following ‘‘ON’’ 

period. Energy measurements for EO, EA, EB, 

EC, and ED should be expressed in watt-hours 

(kJ) for conventional electric ovens, and 

volume measurements for VA, VB, VC, and VD

should be expressed in standard cubic feet 

(L) of gas for conventional gas ovens. For a 

gas oven that can be operated with or without 

forced convection, measure in watt-hours (kJ) 

any electrical energy consumed by an 

ignition device or other electrical 

components required for the operation of a 

conventional gas oven while heating the test 

block to TO using the forced convection 

mode, (EIO)1, and without using the forced 

convection mode, (EIO)2. 

3.2.1.2 Conventional oven fan-only mode 

energy consumption. If the conventional 

oven is capable of operation in fan-only 

mode, measure the fan-only mode energy 

consumption, EOF, expressed in kilowatthours (kJ) of electricity consumed by the 

conventional oven for the duration of fanonly mode, using a watt-hour meter as 

specified in section 2.9.1.1 of this appendix. 

Alternatively, if the duration of fan-only 

mode is known, the watt-hours consumed 

may be measured for a period of 10 minutes 

in fan-only mode, using a watt-hour meter as 

specified in section 2.9.1.1 of this appendix. 

Multiply this value by the time in minutes 

that the conventional oven remains in fanonly mode, tOF, and divide by 10,000 to 

obtain EOF. The alternative approach may be 

used only if the resulting EOF is 

representative of energy use during the entire 

fan-only mode. 

3.2.1.3 Energy consumption of selfcleaning operation. Measure the energy 

consumption, ES, in watt-hours (kJ) of 

electricity or the volume of gas consumption, 

VS, in standard cubic feet (L) during the selfcleaning test set forth in section 3.1.1.1 of 

this appendix. For a gas oven, also measure 

in watt-hours (kJ) any electrical energy, EIS, 

consumed by ignition devices or other 

electrical components required during the 

self-cleaning test. 

3.2.1.4 Standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption. Make measurements as 

specified in section 3.1.1.2 of this appendix. 

If the conventional oven is capable of 

operating in inactive mode, as defined in 

section 1.12 of this appendix, measure the 

average inactive mode power of the 

conventional oven, PIA, in watts as specified 

in section 3.1.1.2.1 of this appendix. If the 

conventional oven is capable of operating in 

off mode, as defined in section 1.14 of this 

appendix, measure the average off mode 

power of the conventional oven, POM, in 

watts as specified in section 3.1.1.2.2 of this 

appendix. 

3.2.1.5 Conventional oven cavity volume. 

Measure the oven cavity volume, CVO, in 

cubic feet (L), as specified in section 3.1.1.3 

of this appendix. 

3.2.2 Conventional surface unit test 

energy consumption. 

3.2.2.1 Conventional surface unit average 

test energy consumption. For the surface unit 

under test, measure the energy consumption, 

ECT, in watt-hours (kJ) of electricity or the 

volume of gas consumption, VCT, in standard 

cubic feet (L) of gas and the test block 

temperature, TCT, at the end of the 15 minute 

(reduced input setting) test interval for the 

test specified in section 3.1.2 of this 

appendix and the total time, tCT, in hours, 

that the unit is under test. Measure any 

electrical energy, EIC, consumed by an 

ignition device of a gas heating element or 

other electrical components required for the 

operation of the conventional gas cooking top 

in watt-hours (kJ). For full-surface induction 

cooking tops, the values described above 

shall be measured for each test block. 

3.2.2.2 Conventional surface unit standby 

mode and off mode energy consumption. 

Make measurements as specified in section 

3.1.2.1 of this appendix. If the conventional 

surface unit is capable of operating in 

inactive mode, as defined in section 1.12 of 

this appendix, measure the average inactive 

mode power of the conventional surface unit, 

PIA, in watts as specified in section 3.1.2.1.1 

of this appendix. If the conventional surface 

unit is capable of operating in off mode, as 

defined in section 1.14 of this appendix, 

measure the average off mode power of the 

conventional surface unit, POM, in watts as 

specified in section 3.1.2.1.2 of this 

appendix. 

3.2.3 Conventional range standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption. Make 

measurements as specified in section 3.1.3 of 

this appendix. If the conventional range is 

capable of operating in inactive mode, as 

defined in section 1.13 of this appendix, 

measure the average inactive mode power of 

the conventional range, PIA, in watts as 

specified in section 3.1.3.1 of this appendix. 

If the conventional range is capable of 

operating in off mode, as defined in section 

1.14 of this appendix, measure the average 

off mode power of the conventional range, 

POM, in watts as specified in section 3.1.3.2 

of this appendix. 

3.2.4 Microwave oven test standby mode 

and off mode power. Make measurements as 

specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 

62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3). If the microwave oven 

is capable of operating in standby mode, as 

defined in section 1.18 of this appendix, 

measure the average standby mode power of 

the microwave oven, PSB, in watts as 

specified in section 3.1.4.1 of this appendix. 

If the microwave oven is capable of operating 

in off mode, as defined in section 1.14 of this 

appendix, measure the average off mode 

power of the microwave oven, POM, as 

specified in section 3.1.4.1. 

3.3 Recorded values. 

3.3.1 Record the test room temperature, 

TR, at the start and end of each range, oven 

or cooktop test, as determined in section 2.5 

of this appendix. 

3.3.2 Record the measured test block, test 

block body, and test block base weights W1, 

W2, W3, W4, W5, W6, and W7 in pounds (kg). 

3.3.3 Record the initial temperature, T1, 

of the test block under test. 

3.3.4 For a conventional oven with a 

thermostat which operates by cycling on and 

off, record the conventional oven test 

measurements TA, EA, TB, EB, TC, EC, TD, and 

ED for conventional electric ovens or TA, VA, 

TB, VB, TC, VC, TD, and VD for conventional 

gas ovens. If the thermostat controls the oven 

temperature without cycling on and off, 

record EO. For a gas oven which also uses 

electrical energy for the ignition or operation 

of the oven, also record EIO. 

3.3.5 For a conventional oven that can be 

operated with or without forced convection 

and the oven thermostat controls the oven 

temperature without cycling on and off, 

measure the energy consumed with the 

forced convection mode, (EO)1, and without 

the forced convection mode, (EO)2. If the 

conventional oven operates with or without 

forced convection and the thermostat 

controls the oven temperature by cycling on 

and off, record the conventional oven test 

measurements TA, EA, TB, EB, TC, EC, TD, and 

ED for conventional electric ovens or TA, VA, 

TB, VB, TC, VC, TD, and VD for conventional 

gas ovens. For a gas oven that can be 

operated with or without forced convection, 

measure any electrical energy consumed by 

an ignition device or other electrical 

components used during the forced 

convection mode, (EIO)1, and without using 

the forced convection mode, (EIO)2. 

3.3.6 Record the measured energy 

consumption, ES, or gas consumption, VS, 

and for a gas oven, any electrical energy, EIS, 

for the test of the self-cleaning operation of 

a conventional oven. 

3.3.7 For conventional ovens, record the 

conventional oven standby mode and off 

mode test measurements PIA and POM, if 

applicable. For conventional cooktops, 

record the conventional cooking top standby 

mode and off mode test measurements PIA

and POM, if applicable. For conventional 

ranges, record the conventional range 

standby mode and off mode test 

measurements PIA and POM, if applicable. 

3.3.8 For conventional ovens, record the 

measured oven cavity volume, CVO, in cubic 

feet (L), rounded to the nearest tenth of a 

cubic foot (nearest L). 

3.3.9 For the surface unit under test, 

record the electric energy consumption, ECT, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
71926 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

or the gas volume consumption, VCT, the 

final test block temperature, TCT, and the 

total test time, tCT. For a gas cooking top 

which uses electrical energy for ignition of 

the burners, also record EIC. 

3.3.10 Record the heating value, Hn, as 

determined in section 2.2.2.2 of this 

appendix for the natural gas supply. 

3.3.11 Record the heating value, Hp, as 

determined in section 2.2.2.3 of this 

appendix for the propane supply. 

3.3.12 Record the average standby mode 

power, PSB, for the microwave oven standby 

mode, as determined in section 3.2.4 of this 

appendix for a microwave oven capable of 

operating in standby mode. Record the 

average off mode power, POM, for the 

microwave oven off mode power test, as 

determined in section 3.2.4 of this appendix 

for a microwave oven capable of operating in 

off mode. 

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

* * * * * 

4.1.2.1.1 Annual primary energy 

consumption. Calculate the annual primary 

energy consumption for cooking, ECO,

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year for 

electric ovens and in kBtus (kJ) per year for 

gas ovens, and defined as: 

for electric ovens, 

Where: 

EO = test energy consumption as measured in 

section 3.2.1 or as calculated in section 

4.1.1 or section 4.1.1.1 of this appendix. 

Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh (3.6 kJ/Wh,) conversion 

factor of watt-hours to Btus. 

OO = 29.3 kWh (105,480 kJ) per year, annual 

useful cooking energy output of 

conventional electric oven. 

W1 = measured weight of test block in 

pounds (kg). 

Cp = 0.23 Btu/lb-°F (0.96 kJ/kg ÷ °C), specific 

heat of test block. 

TS = 234 °F (130 °C), temperature rise of test 

block. 

for gas ovens, 

Where: 

EO = test energy consumption as measured in 

section 3.2.1. or as calculated in section 

4.1.1 or section 4.1.1.1 of this appendix. 

OO = 88.8 kBtu (93,684 kJ) per year, annual 

useful cooking energy output of 

conventional gas oven. 

W1, Cp and TS are the same as defined above. 

* * * * * 

4.1.2.2.1 Annual primary energy 

consumption. Calculate the annual primary 

energy consumption for conventional oven 

self-cleaning operations, ESC, expressed in 

kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year for electric ovens 

and in kBtus (kJ) for gas ovens, and defined 

as: 

ESC = ES × Se × K, for electric ovens, 

Where: 

ES = energy consumption in watt-hours, as 

measured in section 3.2.1.3 of this 

appendix. 

Se = 4, average number of times a selfcleaning operation of a conventional 

electric oven is used per year. 

K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for 

watt-hours to kilowatt-hours. 

or 

ESC = VS × H × Sg × K, for gas ovens, 

Where: 

VS = gas consumption in standard cubic feet 

(L), as measured in section 3.2.1.3 of this 

appendix. 

H = Hn or Hp, the heating value of the gas 

used in the test as specified in sections 

2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3 of this appendix in 

Btus per standard cubic foot (kJ/L). 

Sg = 4, average number of times a selfcleaning operation of a conventional gas 

oven is used per year. 

K = 0.001 kBtu/Btu conversion factor for Btus 

to kBtus 

* * * * * 

4.1.2.4.3 Conventional gas oven energy 

consumption. Calculate the total annual gas 

energy consumption of a conventional gas 

oven, EAOG, expressed in kBtus (kJ) per year 

and defined as: 

EA0G = ECO + ESC, 

Where: 

ECO = annual primary cooking energy 

consumption as determined in section 

4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

ESC = annual primary self-cleaning energy 

consumption as determined in section 

4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix. 

If the conventional gas oven uses electrical 

energy, calculate the total annual electrical 

energy consumption, EAOE, expressed in 

kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and defined as: 

EAOE = ESO + ESS, 

Where: 

ESO = annual secondary cooking energy 

consumption as determined in section 

4.1.2.1.2 of this appendix. 

ESS = annual secondary self-cleaning energy 

consumption as determined in section 

4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix. 

If the conventional gas oven uses electrical 

energy, also calculate the total integrated 

annual electrical energy consumption, IEAOE, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and 

defined as: 

IEAOE = ESO + ESS + EOTLP + (EOF × NOG), 

Where: 

ESO = annual secondary cooking energy 

consumption as determined in section 

4.1.2.1.2 of this appendix. 

ESS = annual secondary self-cleaning energy 

consumption as determined in section 

4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix. 

EOTLP = annual combined low-power mode 

energy consumption as determined in 

section 4.1.2.3 of this appendix. 

EOF = fan-only mode energy consumption as 

measured in section 3.2.1.2 of this 

appendix. 

NOG = representative number of annual 

conventional gas oven cooking cycles per 

year, which is equal to 183 cycles for a 

conventional gas oven without self-clean 

capability and 197 cycles for a 

conventional gas oven with self-clean 

capability. 

4.1.2.5 Total annual energy consumption 

of multiple conventional ovens and 

conventional ovens with an oven separator. 

If the cooking appliance includes more than 

one conventional oven or consists of a 

conventional oven equipped with an oven 

separator that allows for cooking using the 

entire oven cavity or, if the separator is 

installed, splitting the oven into two smaller 

cavities, calculate the total annual energy 

consumption of the conventional oven(s) 

using the following equations: 

4.1.2.5.1 Conventional electric oven 

energy consumption. Calculate the total 

annual energy consumption, ETO, in kilowatthours (kJ) per year and defined as: 

ETO = EACO + EASC

Where: 

is the average annual primary energy 

consumption for cooking, and where: 

n = number of conventional ovens in the 

basic model or, if the cooking appliance 

is equipped with an oven separator, the 

number of oven cavity configurations. 

ECO = annual primary energy consumption 

for cooking as determined in section 

4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

is the average annual self-cleaning energy 

consumption, 

Where: 

n = number of self-cleaning conventional 

ovens in the basic model. 

ESC = annual primary self-cleaning energy 

consumption as determined according to 

section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix. 

4.1.2.5.2 Conventional electric oven 

integrated energy consumption. Calculate the 

total integrated annual energy consumption, 

IETO, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and 

defined as: 

IETO = EACO + EASC + EOTLP + (EOF × NOE) 

Where 

is the average annual primary energy 

consumption for cooking, and where: 

n = number of conventional ovens in the 

basic model or, if the cooking appliance 

is equipped with an oven separator, the 

number of oven cavity configurations. 

ECO = annual primary energy consumption 

for cooking as determined in section 

4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP03DE14.005</GPH> EP03DE14.006</GPH> EP03DE14.007</GPH> EP03DE14.008</GPH> EP03DE14.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71927 

is the average annual self-cleaning energy 

consumption, 

Where: 

n = number of self-cleaning conventional 

ovens in the basic model. 

ESC = annual primary self-cleaning energy 

consumption as determined according to 

section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix. 

EOTLP = annual combined low-power mode 

energy consumption for the cooking 

appliance as determined in section 

4.1.2.3 of this appendix. 

EOF = fan-only mode energy consumption as 

measured in section 3.2.1.2 of this 

appendix. 

NOE = representative number of annual 

conventional electric oven cooking 

cycles per year, which is equal to 219 

cycles for a conventional electric oven 

without self-clean capability and 204 

cycles for a conventional electric oven 

with self-clean capability. 

4.1.2.5.3 Conventional gas oven energy 

consumption. Calculate the total annual gas 

energy consumption, ETOG, in kBtus (kJ) per 

year and defined as: 

ETOG = EACO + EASC

Where: 

EACO = average annual primary energy 

consumption for cooking in kBtus (kJ) 

per year and is calculated as: 

Where: 

n = number of conventional ovens in the 

basic model or, if the cooking appliance 

is equipped with an oven separator, the 

number of oven cavity configurations. 

ECO = annual primary energy consumption 

for cooking as determined in section 

4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

and, 

EASC = average annual self-cleaning energy 

consumption in kBtus (kJ) per year and 

is calculated as: 

Where: 

n = number of self-cleaning conventional 

ovens in the basic model. 

ESC = annual primary self-cleaning energy 

consumption as determined according to 

section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix. 

If the oven also uses electrical energy, 

calculate the total annual electrical energy 

consumption, ETOE, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per 

year and defined as: 

ETOE = EASO + EAAS

Where: 

is the average annual secondary energy 

consumption for cooking, 

Where: 

n = number of conventional ovens in the 

basic model or, if the cooking appliance 

is equipped with an oven separator, the 

number of oven cavity configurations. 

ESO = annual secondary energy consumption 

for cooking of gas ovens as determined 

in section 4.1.2.1.2 of this appendix. 

is the average annual secondary self-cleaning 

energy consumption, 

Where: 

n = number of self-cleaning ovens in the 

basic model. 

ESS = annual secondary self-cleaning energy 

consumption of gas ovens as determined 

in section 4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix. 

If the oven also uses electrical energy, also 

calculate the total integrated annual electrical 

energy consumption, IETOE, in kilowatt-hours 

(kJ) per year and defined as: 

IETOE = EASO + EAAS + EOTLP + (EOF × NOG) 

Where: 

is the average annual secondary energy 

consumption for cooking, 

Where: 

n = number of conventional ovens in the 

basic model or, if the cooking appliance 

is equipped with an oven separator, the 

number of oven cavity configurations. 

ESO = annual secondary energy consumption 

for cooking of gas ovens as determined 

in section 4.1.2.1.2 of this appendix. 

is the average annual secondary self-cleaning 

energy consumption, 

Where: 

n = number of self-cleaning ovens in the 

basic model. 

ESS = annual secondary self-cleaning energy 

consumption of gas ovens as determined 

in section 4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix. 

EOTLP = annual combined low-power mode 

energy consumption as determined in 

section 4.1.2.3 of this appendix. 

EOF = fan-only mode energy consumption as 

measured in section 3.2.1.2 of this 

appendix. 

NOG = representative number of annual 

conventional gas oven cooking cycles per 

year, which is equal to 183 cycles for a 

conventional gas oven without self-clean 

capability and 197 cycles for a 

conventional gas oven with self-clean 

capability. 

* * * * * 

4.1.3.2 Multiple conventional ovens and 

conventional ovens with an oven separator. 

If the cooking appliance includes more than 

one conventional oven or consists of a 

conventional oven equipped with an oven 

separator that allows for cooking using the 

entire oven cavity or, if the separator is 

installed, splitting the oven into two smaller 

cavities, calculate the cooking efficiency of 

the conventional oven(s), EffTO, using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

n = number of conventional ovens in the 

cooking appliance or, if the cooking 

appliance is equipped with an oven 

separator, the number of oven cavity 

configurations. 

EffAO = cooking efficiency of each oven 

determined according to section 4.1.3.1 

of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

4.1.4.1 Conventional oven energy factor. 

Calculate the energy factor, or the ratio of 

useful cooking energy output to the total 

energy input, RO, using the following 

equations: 

For electric ovens, 

Where: 

OO = 29.3 kWh (105,480 kJ) per year, annual 

useful cooking energy output. 

EAO = total annual energy consumption for 

electric ovens as determined in section 

4.1.2.4.1 of this appendix. 

For gas ovens: 

Where: 

OO = 88.8 kBtu (93,684 kJ) per year, annual 

useful cooking energy output. 

EAOG = total annual gas energy consumption 

for conventional gas ovens as determined 

in section 4.1.2.4.3 of this appendix. 

EAOE = total annual electrical energy 

consumption for conventional gas ovens 

as determined in section 4.1.2.4.3 of this 

appendix. 

Ke = 3.412 kBtu/kWh (3,600 kJ/kWh), 

conversion factor for kilowatt-hours to 

kBtus. 

4.1.4.2 Conventional oven integrated 

energy factor. Calculate the integrated energy 

factor, or the ratio of useful cooking energy 

output to the total integrated energy input, 

IRO, using the following equations: 

For electric ovens, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP03DE14.010</GPH> EP03DE14.011</GPH> EP03DE14.012</GPH> EP03DE14.013</GPH> EP03DE14.014</GPH> EP03DE14.015</GPH> EP03DE14.016</GPH> EP03DE14.017</GPH> EP03DE14.018</GPH> EP03DE14.019</GPH> EP03DE14.020</GPH> 
71928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

OO = 29.3 kWh (105,480 kJ) per year, annual 

useful cooking energy output. 

IEAO = total integrated annual energy 

consumption for electric ovens as 

determined in section 4.1.2.4.2 of this 

appendix. 

For gas ovens: 

Where: 

OO = 88.8 kBtu (93,684 kJ) per year, annual 

useful cooking energy output. 

EAOG = total annual gas energy consumption 

for conventional gas ovens as determined 

in section 4.1.2.4.3 of this appendix. 

IEAOE = total integrated annual electrical 

energy consumption for conventional gas 

ovens as determined in section 4.1.2.4.3 

of this appendix. 

Ke = 3.412 kBtu/kWh (3,600 kJ/kWh), 

conversion factor for kilowatt-hours to 

kBtus. 

4.2 Conventional cooking top. 

4.2.1 Surface unit cooking efficiency. 

4.2.1.1 Electric surface unit cooking 

efficiency. Calculate the cooking efficiency, 

EffSU, of the electric surface unit or surface 

unit size setting under test, defined as: 

Where: 

WTB = measured weight of test block body, 

W2, W4, or W6 expressed in pounds (kg). 

Cp,TB = 0.23 Btu/lb-°F (0.96 kJ/kg ÷ °C), 

specific heat of test block body. 

WB = measured weight of test block base, W3, 

W5, or W7 expressed in pounds (kg). 

Cp,B = 0.11 Btu/lb-°F (0.46 kJ/kg ÷ °C), 

specific heat of test block base. 

TSU = temperature rise of the test block: final 

test block temperature, TCT, as 

determined in section 3.2.2 of this 

appendix, minus the initial test block 

temperature, TI, expressed in °F (°C) as 

determined in section 2.7.5 of this 

appendix. 

Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh (3.6 kJ/Wh), conversion 

factor of watt-hours to Btus. 

ECT = measured energy consumption, as 

determined according to section 3.2.2 of 

this appendix, expressed in watt-hours 

(kJ). 

4.2.1.2 Gas surface unit cooking 

efficiency. Calculate the cooking efficiency, 

EffSU, of the gas surface unit under test, 

defined as: 

Where: 

WTB = measured weight of test block body, 

W4 or W6, expressed in pounds (kg). 

WB = measured weight of test block base, W5

or W7, expressed in pounds (kg). 

Cp,TB, Cp,B, and TSU are the same as defined 

in section 4.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

and, 

E = (VCT × H) + (EIC × Ke), 

Where: 

VCT = total gas consumption in standard 

cubic feet (L) for the gas surface unit test 

as measured in section 3.2.2.1 of this 

appendix. 

EIC = electrical energy consumed in watthours (kJ) by an ignition device of a gas 

surface unit as measured in section 

3.2.2.1 of this appendix. 

Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh (3.6 kJ/Wh), conversion 

factor of watt-hours to Btus. 

H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the 

gas used in the test as specified in 

sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3 of this 

appendix, expressed in Btus per 

standard cubic foot (kJ/L) of gas. 

4.2.1.3 Conventional cooking top cooking 

efficiency. Calculate the conventional 

cooking top cooking efficiency EffCT using 

the following equation: 

Where: 

n = number of cooking top surface units tests. 

For a full-surface induction cooking top, 

n = 3. 

EffSU = the efficiency determined during each 

surface unit test, as determined 

according to section 4.2.1.1 of this 

appendix or section 4.2.1.2 of this 

appendix. 

* * * * * 

4.2.2.2.1 Annual cooking energy 

consumption. Calculate the annual energy 

consumption for cooking, ECC, in kBtus (kJ) 

per year for a gas cooking top, defined as: 

Where: 

OCT = 527.6 kBtu (556,618 kJ) per year, 

annual useful cooking energy output. 

EffCT = the gas cooking top efficiency as 

defined in Section 4.2.1.3. 

4.2.2.2.2 Total integrated annual energy 

consumption of a conventional gas cooking 

top. Calculate the total integrated annual 

energy consumption of a conventional gas 

cooking top, IECA, in kBtus (kJ) per year, 

defined as: 

IECA = ECC + (ECTSO × Ke) 

Where: 

ECC = energy consumption for cooking as 

determined in section 4.2.2.2.1 of this 

appendix. 

ECTSO = conventional cooking top combined 

low-power mode energy consumption = 

[(PIA × SIA) + (POM × SOM)] × K, 

Where: 

PIA = conventional cooking top inactive 

mode power, in watts, as measured in 

section 3.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. 

POM = conventional cooking top off mode 

power, in watts, as measured in section 

3.1.2.1.2 of this appendix. 

If the conventional cooking top has both 

inactive mode and off mode annual hours, 

SIA and SOM both equal 4273.4; 

If the conventional cooking top has an 

inactive mode but no off mode, the inactive 

mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to 8546.9, 

and the off mode annual hours, SOM, is equal 

to 0; 

If the conventional cooking top has an off 

mode but no inactive mode, SIA is equal to 

0, and SOM is equal to 8546.9; 

K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for 

watt-hours to kilowatt-hours. 

Ke = 3.412 kBtu/kWh (3,600 kJ/kWh), 

conversion factor for kilowatt-hours to 

kBtus. 

* * * * * 

4.2.3.2 Conventional cooking top 

integrated energy factor. Calculate the 

integrated energy factor or ratio of useful 

cooking energy output for cooking to the total 

integrated energy input, IRCT, as follows: 

For electric cooking tops, 

Where: 

OCT = 173.1 kWh (623,160 kJ) per year, 

annual useful cooking energy output of 

cooking top. 

IECA = total annual integrated energy 

consumption of cooking top determined 

according to section 4.2.2.1.2 of this 

appendix. 

For gas cooking tops, 

Where: 

OCT = 527.6 kBtu (556,618 kJ) per year, 

annual useful cooking energy output of 

cooking top. 

IECA = total integrated annual energy 

consumption of cooking top determined 

according to section 4.2.2.2.2 of this 

appendix. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–28212 Filed 12–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


EP03DE14.021</GPH> EP03DE14.022</GPH> EP03DE14.023</GPH> EP03DE14.024</GPH> EP03DE14.025</GPH> EP03DE14.026</GPH> EP03DE14.027</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3