6232 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

keep records of the placement of traps, 

trap visits, trap counts, and treatments 

for each registered place of production 

and make the records available to 

APHIS upon request. 

(2) All apricots for export from 

continental Spain to the United States 

must be treated for C. capitata in 

accordance with part 305 of this 

chapter. 

(h) Post-harvest procedures. The 

apricots must be safeguarded by a pestproof screen, plastic tarpaulin, or by 

some other pest-proof barrier while in 

transit to the packinghouse and while 

awaiting packing. They must be packed 

within 24 hours of harvest into pestproof cartons or containers or covered 

with pest-proof mesh or a plastic 

tarpaulin for transport to the United 

States. These safeguards must remain 

intact until arrival of the consignment in 

the United States. 

(i) Packinghouse requirements. 

Packing of apricots for export to the 

United States must be conducted within 

a packinghouse registered and approved 

by the NPPO of Spain. Packinghouses in 

which apricots are packed for export to 

the United States must be able to 

exclude quarantine pests. All openings 

to the outside of the packinghouse must 

be covered by screening with openings 

of not more than 1.6 mm or by some 

other barrier that prevents pests from 

entering. The packinghouse must have 

double self-closing doors at the entrance 

to the facility and at the interior 

entrance to the area where the apricots 

are to be packed. During the time the 

packinghouse is used to pack and export 

apricot fruit to the United States, the 

packinghouse must only accept fruit 

from places of production registered and 

approved by the NPPO of Spain. 

(j) Phytosanitary inspection. (1) A 

biometric sample of apricot fruit jointly 

agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Spain must be inspected in Spain by the 

NPPO of Spain following post-harvest 

processing. The sample must be visually 

inspected for the quarantine pests A. 

erythrostoma, C. funebrana, and M. 

fructigena. A portion of the fruit must be 

cut open and inspected for C. capitata. 

If any of these quarantine pests are 

found, the entire consignment of apricot 

fruit will be prohibited from 

importation into the United States. 

(2) Fruit presented for inspection at a 

U.S. port of entry must be identified in 

the shipping documents accompanying 

each lot of fruit that specify the place of 

production in which the fruit was 

produced and the packinghouse in 

which the fruit was processed. This 

identification must be maintained until 

the fruit is released for entry into the 

United States. 

(k) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of apricot fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Spain 

that states that the fruit has been treated 

for C. capitata in accordance with 7 CFR 

part 305 and includes an additional 

declaration that the fruit in the 

consignment was inspected and found 

free from A. erythrostoma, C. capitata, 

C. funebrana, and M. fructigena. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

January 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02021 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

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 With Induction Heating 

Technology 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to revise its test 

procedures for cooking products 

established under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. Test procedures for 

cooking products can be found at DOE’s 

regulations for Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products, subpart 

B, appendix I (Appendix I). The 

proposed amendments to Appendix I 

would amend the test method for 

measuring the energy efficiency of 

induction cooking tops and ranges. 

Appendix I does not currently include 

any test methods applicable to 

induction cooking products. The 

proposed amendments would 

incorporate induction cooking tops by 

amending the definition of 

‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to include 

induction heating technology. 

Furthermore, the proposed amendments 

would require for cooking tops the use 

of test equipment compatible with 

induction technology as well as with gas 

burners and electric resistance heating 

elements. Specifically, the amendments 

would replace the solid aluminum test 

blocks currently specified in the test 

procedure for cooking tops with hybrid 

test blocks comprising two separate 

pieces: an aluminum body and a 

stainless steel base. Appendix I 

currently specifies the test block size for 

electric cooking tops based on the 

surface unit diameter; however, there 

are no provisions for determining which 

test block size to use for non-circular 

electric surface units. The proposed 

amendments include a clarification that 

the test block size be determined using 

the smallest dimension of the electric 

surface unit. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than April 15, 2013. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

DOE will hold a public meeting on 

Monday, March 4, 2013, from 9 a.m. to 

4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting 

will also be broadcast as a Webinar. See 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to Webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. Persons can attend the 

public meeting via Webinar. For more 

information, refer to the Public 

Participation section near the end of this 

notice. 

Comments: 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–2J, 

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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6233 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at regulations.gov, including 

Federal Register notices, framework 

documents, public meeting attendee 

lists and transcripts, comments, and 

other supporting documents/materials. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

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

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

PSrpp=50;so=DESC;sb=postedDate;po=

0;D=EERE–2012-BT-TP-0013. This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this notice on the regulations.gov site. 

The regulations.gov Web page will 

contain simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section V 

for information on how to submit 

comments through regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 202–287–6307. 

Email: Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

B. Test Procedures for Cooking Products 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by This Test 

Procedure Rulemaking 

B. Effective Date 

C. Active Mode Test Procedure 

1. Aluminum Test Blocks 

2. Carbon Steel Test Blocks 

3. Carbon Steel Hybrid Test Blocks 

4. Stainless Steel Hybrid Test Blocks 

5. Water-Heating Tests 

6. Non-Circular Electric Surface Units 

D. Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure 

E. 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 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

1. Proposed Amended Definitions 

2. Stainless Steel Hybrid Test Blocks 

3. Water-Heating Test 

4. Non-Circular Electric Surface Units 

5. Standby and Off Mode 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140 (Dec. 

19, 2007)). Part B of title III, which for 

editorial reasons was redesignated as 

Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. 

Code (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309), establishes 

the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ These include residential 

kitchen ranges and ovens, the subject of 

today’s notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR). (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) 

Under EPCA, this program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards, and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. The testing 

requirements consist of test procedures 

that manufacturers of covered products 

must use (1) as the basis for certifying 

to DOE that their products comply with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 

for making representations about the 

efficiency of those products. Similarly, 

DOE must use these test requirements to 

determine whether the products comply 

with any relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. 

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

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. . (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) 

Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a 

test procedure, DOE must determine to 

what extent, if any, the proposed test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency of any covered 

product as determined under the 

existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

B. Test Procedures for Cooking 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) 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6234 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1For more information on the EnergyGuide 

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

cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr305_00.html. 

2 DOE is not aware of any residential 

conventional ovens that use induction heating 

technology that are available on the market in the 

United States. 

3 GE, Whirlpool, and Electrolux, as reported in 

‘‘U.S. Appliance Industry: Market Share, Life 

Expectancy & Replacement Market, and Saturation 

Levels’’. Appliance Magazine Market Research 

Report, January 2010. 

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 recently conducted a separate 

rulemaking to address standby and off 

mode energy consumption, as well as 

certain active mode testing provisions, 

for residential dishwashers, 

dehumidifiers, and conventional 

cooking products. DOE published a final 

rule on October 31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, 

hereafter referred to as the October 2012 

Final Rule), adopting standby and off 

mode provisions that satisfy the EISA 

2007 amendments to EPCA, which 

require DOE to include measures of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption in its test procedures for 

residential products, if technically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In today’s NOPR, DOE proposes 

amendments to the test procedures in 

Appendix I that would allow for testing 

the active mode energy consumption of 

induction cooking products; i.e., 

conventional cooking tops and ranges 

equipped with induction heating 

technology for one or more surface units 

on the cooking top.2 The 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. Under the 

proposed amendments, which would 

amend the definition of ‘‘conventional 

cooking top’’ to include products with 

induction heating, induction cooking 

products would be tested according to 

the same test procedures as 

conventional cooking products. 

The current test method for 

conventional cooking tops (which is 

also used for the cooking top portion of 

conventional ranges) involves heating a 

solid aluminum test block on each 

surface unit of the cooking top. The 

cooking top cooking efficiency is 

determined by averaging the efficiencies 

of all surface units on the cooking top. 

The proposed test procedure would 

replace the aluminum test blocks 

currently specified for conventional 

cooking top testing with hybrid test 

blocks comprising two separate stacked 

pieces: a stainless steel alloy 430 base, 

which is compatible with the induction 

technology, and an aluminum body. The 

proposed hybrid test blocks would have 

the same outer diameters and heat 

capacities as the existing aluminum test 

blocks. 

DOE considered other potential test 

blocks, including blocks made entirely 

of carbon steel alloy 1018, and hybrid 

blocks with carbon steel bases, but 

found the results using those blocks to 

be less repeatable than for the hybrid 

blocks with stainless steel alloy 430 

bases. DOE also considered an alternate 

test method based on heating water. 

While this method may better represent 

actual consumer use, DOE is not 

proposing a water-heating test 

procedure due to concerns regarding 

repeatability, and to maintain 

consistency with the existing test 

procedure for conventional cooking tops 

and ranges. 

In today’s NOPR, DOE further 

proposes methodology to determine the 

required test block size for all electric 

surface units, including those that are 

non-circular. 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by This Test 

Procedure Rulemaking 

As discussed in section I of this 

NOPR, the test procedures currently in 

Appendix I do not apply to induction 

cooking products. Induction products 

were not considered in the initial final 

rule to establish these test procedures 

because of their relatively small market 

share in 1978. 43 FR 20117. Today’s 

proposal would amend the DOE test 

procedures for conventional cooking 

tops and ranges to cover induction 

cooking products. 

Although induction cooking products 

started as a niche product with a very 

small market share, a recent survey of 

major retailers indicates that roughly 10 

percent of all cooking tops currently 

available on the market now use 

induction heating. Additionally, the 

three manufacturers comprising more 

than 84 percent of the market for 

conventional ranges 3 each offer 

multiple induction cooking products. 

Given the increased availability of 

induction cooking products, DOE 

believes these products now warrant 

inclusion in the Appendix I test 

procedures to allow for consideration in 

future rulemaking analyses. 

Induction cooking products use an 

oscillating magnetic field, produced by 

alternating current through a coil under 

the cooking top surface, to generate 

(‘‘induce’’) current in the cooking 

vessel. The current in turn creates heat 

in the cooking vessel due to the 

electrical resistance of the metal, and 

the heat is transferred to the food load 

by means of conduction and convection. 

In order for the current to be induced 

and the induction technology to 

function properly, the cooking vessel 

must be made of a ferromagnetic 

material, such as steel or iron. 

As discussed further in section III.C of 

this NOPR, the amendments proposed 

in today’s notice would apply to 

conventional cooking products in 

general, including induction cooking 

products. DOE currently defines 

‘‘cooking products’’ as the major 

household cooking appliances that cook 

or heat food by gas, electricity, or 

microwave energy, and include 

conventional ranges, conventional 

cooking tops, conventional ovens, 

microwave ovens, microwave/ 

conventional ranges and other cooking 

products. 10 CFR 430.2. A 

‘‘conventional cooking top’’ contains 

one or more surface units which include 

either a gas flame or electric resistance 

heating. Id. A ‘‘conventional range’’ 

consists of a conventional cooking top 

and one or more conventional ovens. Id. 

The current definition of 

‘‘conventional cooking top,’’ and by 

extension, the definition of 

‘‘conventional range,’’ does not refer to 

heating by means of electricity other 

than electric resistance heating, which 

would preclude induction heating. 

Because of the increased availability of 

induction cooking products discussed 

in the beginning of this section, DOE is 

proposing to amend the definition of 

‘‘conventional cooking top’’ to a 

household cooking appliance within a 

class of kitchen ranges and ovens, each 

of which consists of a horizontal surface 

containing one or more surface units 

that utilize a gas flame, electric 

resistance heating, or electric inductive 

heating. The definition of ‘‘conventional 

range’’ would remain unchanged, but 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6235 

would newly cover products with a 

conventional oven and a cooking top 

that heats by means of induction 

technology. 

Appendix I also includes a definition 

of ‘‘active mode,’’ which references 

production of heat by means of a gas 

flame, electric resistance heating, or 

microwave energy. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix I. As with the 

definition of ‘‘conventional cooking 

top,’’ this definition does not cover 

induction cooking products. DOE 

proposes to revise the definition of 

‘‘active mode’’ to a mode in which a 

conventional cooking top, conventional 

oven, conventional range, or microwave 

oven 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. 

The definition would include the 

current clarification that delay start 

mode is a one-off user-initiated short 

duration function that is associated with 

an active mode. This definition would 

be consistent with the proposed 

definition of ‘‘conventional cooking 

top.’’ 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amended definitions of 

conventional cooking top and active 

mode. 

B. Effective Date 

The amended test procedure would 

become effective 30 days after any test 

procedure final rule is published in the 

Federal Register. The amendments 

would require that as of 180 days after 

publication of any test procedure final 

rule, representations related to the 

energy consumption of conventional 

cooking products, including induction 

cooking products, must be based upon 

results generated under the applicable 

provisions of the amended test 

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

6293(c)(2)) 

C. Active Mode Test Procedure 

The current test procedure for 

conventional cooking tops involves 

heating an aluminum test block on each 

surface unit of the cooking top. Two 

aluminum test blocks, of different 

diameters, are specified for testing 

different surface units. The small test 

block (6.25 inches diameter) is used for 

electric surface units with diameters of 

7 inches or less, and the large test block 

(9 inches diameter) is used for electric 

surface units with diameters greater 

than 7 inches and all gas surface units. 

Once the initial test and ambient 

conditions are met, the surface unit is 

turned to its maximum energy input 

setting. After the test block temperature 

increases by 144 °F, the surface unit is 

immediately reduced to 25 percent ± 5 

percent of the maximum energy input 

rate for 15 ± 0.1 minutes. The efficiency 

of the surface unit is calculated as the 

ratio of the energy transferred to the test 

block (based on its temperature rise) to 

the energy consumed by the cooking top 

during the test. The cooking top cooking 

efficiency is calculated as the average 

efficiency of the surface units on the 

cooking top. 

As discussed in section III.A of 

today’s NOPR, induction cooking 

products are only compatible with 

ferromagnetic cooking vessels because 

their high magnetic permeability 

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. 

DOE conducted testing to investigate 

potential substitute test blocks for 

testing induction cooking products. 

DOE conducted tests on three 

conventional and three induction 

cooking tops to determine what effects, 

if any, the different types of test blocks 

would have on the test-to-test 

repeatability and final efficiency results. 

The test sample included conventional 

cooking tops to allow for a comparison 

between the substitute test blocks and 

the current aluminum test blocks. 

DOE considered three possible 

substitute test blocks: carbon steel, 

carbon steel hybrid, and stainless steel 

hybrid. 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. 

The diameters and heat capacities of 

the aluminum test blocks currently 

specified in Appendix I reflect 

consumer cooking behavior. DOE is not 

aware of information indicating cooking 

behavior has changed. Therefore, each 

substitute test block was constructed 

with the same diameter as the current 

aluminum test blocks (6.25 inches for 

small and 9 inches for large). 

Additionally, DOE varied the heights of 

the substitute test blocks to match the 

heat capacities of the current aluminum 

blocks. For the hybrid test blocks, DOE 

set the thickness of the steel bases at 

0.25 inches to be thin enough to 

represent the thickness of a typical pot 

or pan while still being thick enough to 

prevent warping. DOE set the height of 

the aluminum body in the hybrid test 

blocks so the overall heat capacity (the 

sum of the steel base heat capacity and 

the aluminum body heat capacity) 

matched that of the current aluminum 

test blocks. 

DOE proposes in today’s NOPR to 

maintain the test method of heating the 

test blocks, but to substitute the current 

aluminum test blocks with the stainless 

steel hybrid test blocks described above 

for testing all cooking tops covered by 

the proposed definition of conventional 

cooking top (i.e., gas flame, electric 

resistance heating, and electric 

inductive heating). Sections III.C.1 

through III.C.4 below compare the test 

results for the different potential test 

blocks and discuss the rationale for 

selecting the stainless steel hybrid test 

block as the substitute. 

DOE also conducted tests to heat 

water in cooking vessels to compare test 

repeatability with the metal block 

heating tests. Heating water would 

allow for a test procedure that is more 

representative of actual consumer usage 

(in terms of the cooking food load), but 

would also introduce additional sources 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6236 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

of variability. Section III.C.5 below 

describes the water-heating tests. 

1. Aluminum Test Blocks 

DOE conducted tests using the current 

aluminum test blocks to establish a 

baseline for comparison to the candidate 

substitute test blocks. Appendix I 

provides specifications for the large and 

small aluminum test blocks as shown in 

Table III.2. 

TABLE III.2—ALUMINUM TEST BLOCK SPECIFICATIONS

Test block size Block diameter 

(inches (in)) 

Block height 

(in) 

Block weight 

(pounds (lb)) 

Specific heat 

(British thermal 

units 

(Btu)/(lb-°F)) 

Heat capacity 

(Btu/°F) 

Small ....................................................................... 6.25 ± 0.05 ........ 2.8 .................... 8.5 ± 0.1 .............. 0.23 ................. 1.96 

Large ....................................................................... 9 ± 0.05 ............. 3 ....................... 19 ± 0.1 ............... 0.23 ................. 4.37 

Because aluminum is not compatible 

with induction cooking, DOE only 

tested the aluminum blocks on the three 

conventional cooking tops (2 electric 

and 1 gas cooking tops), in the test 

sample. The small test block was used 

for electric surface units with diameters 

of 7 inches or less. The large test block 

was used for electric surface units with 

diameters greater than 7 inches and all 

gas surface units, as required by 

Appendix I. 

DOE did not test every surface unit on 

each cooking top in the test sample 

because most cooking tops include 

multiple surface units of equal diameter 

and power rating. Prior investigative 

testing showed that surface units with 

equal diameters and power ratings on 

the same cooking top have similar 

performance. In these cases, DOE tested 

only one of the identical surface units 

to limit the total number of tests. 

Cooking Top A has electric resistance 

heating in open coils, Cooking Top B 

has electric resistance heating under a 

smooth ceramic surface, and Cooking 

Top C has gas-flame burners. Table III.3 

summarizes the test results using the 

aluminum blocks for surface units on 

these products. The surface unit 

numbers included in Table III.3 are used 

to differentiate between surface units on 

the same cooking top. The values listed 

for each surface unit summarize the data 

from five tests, except where noted. 

TABLE III.3—ALUMINUM TEST BLOCK RESULTS

Test block size Cooking 

top Heating technology Surface unit 

Mean 

efficiency 

% 

Standard 

deviation 

% 

95-percent 

confidence 

interval 

(±) 

% 

Large ....................................................... A ............ Electric Coil ................................ 1 71.03 2.22 2.76 

B ............ Electric Smooth .......................... 1 54.22 0.64 0.80 

2 65.19 1.06 1.32 

C ............ Gas ............................................ 1 a b 18.96 a 1.01 a 1.60 

Small ....................................................... A ............ Electric Coil ................................ 2 65.04 2.73 3.39 

B ............ Electric Smooth .......................... 3 61.70 0.73 0.90 

aValues describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance 

heating elements. b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from test-to-test. 

As shown in Table III.3, a set of five 

tests using the aluminum test block on 

the surface units with electric resistance 

or gas flame heating produced standard 

deviations of less than 3 percent for 

each surface unit. These standard 

deviations correspond to 95-percent 

confidence intervals within 4 percent of 

the mean efficiency. 

DOE is aware that the mean efficiency 

listed for the gas surface unit is lower 

than expected. Typically, gas surface 

units have efficiencies at or above 40 

percent. The lower-than-expected 

efficiency suggests the magnitudes of 

the gas consumption for these tests as 

measured by the meter are likely higher 

than the actual consumption. The 

surface unit tested on Cooking Top C 

has a maximum energy output rating of 

9,200 Btu per hour. However, the 

measured gas use for each test was 

consistently about 55 percent greater 

than the maximum rating at the 

maximum energy input rate setting, 

suggesting the meter overstated the gas 

consumption. 

Although the meter readings affected 

the magnitude of the gas surface unit 

efficiency results, DOE believes the 

results still provide meaningful 

information for assessing the candidate 

test blocks. The purpose of the testing 

was to compare the testing results, in 

terms of repeatability and overall 

efficiency, across the different test block 

types, and not necessarily to compare 

efficiencies from unit-to-unit. DOE 

observed the same low efficiencies and 

high gas consumptions in the tests on 

the substitute test blocks described in 

sections III.C.2 though III.C.5 of this 

NOPR, so the results for the gas cooking 

top can still be compared between the 

different test blocks. The high meter 

readings do not allow a consistent 

comparison of the gas surface unit 

efficiency to the electric surface units, 

but gas surface units typically have 

efficiencies in a lower range compared 

to electric surface units. 

2. Carbon Steel Test Blocks 

DOE conducted tests using solid 

carbon steel test blocks with the 

specifications shown in Table III.4, 

matching the aluminum test blocks in 

diameter and heat capacity. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6237 

TABLE III.4—CARBON STEEL TEST BLOCK SPECIFICATIONS

Test block size Block diameter 

(in) 

Block height 

(in) 

Block weight 

(lb) 

Specific heat 

(Btu/lb-°F) 

Heat capacity 

(Btu/°F) 

Small ...................................................... 6.25 1.93 16.85 0.116 1.96 

Large ...................................................... 9 2.09 37.67 0.116 4.37 

DOE tested the carbon steel blocks on 

all six cooking tops in the test sample, 

comprising the three conventional 

cooking tops discussed in section III.C.1 

and three induction cooking tops. 

Cooking Tops D and E are built-in 

induction cooking tops, and Cooking 

Top F is a portable, single-element 

induction cooking top. Table III.5 

summarizes the test results using the 

carbon steel test blocks for surface units 

on these products. As described in 

section III.C.1, DOE did not test 

multiple surface units with equal 

diameters on the same cooking top, and 

the surface unit numbers included in 

the table are used to differentiate 

between surface units on the same 

cooking top. 

TABLE III.5—CARBON STEEL TEST BLOCK RESULTS

Test block size Cooking 

top Heating technology Surface unit 

Mean 

efficiency 

% 

Standard 

deviation 

% 

95-percent 

confidence 

interval 

(±) % 

Large ................................................. A ............ Electric Coil ...................................... 1 69.79 1.59 1.97 

B ............ Electric Smooth ................................ 1 

2 

53.19 

63.24 

1.28 

2.03 

1.60 

2.52 

C ............ Gas ................................................... 1 a b 18.67 a 0.92 a 1.46 

D ............ Induction ........................................... 1 63.92 2.30 2.86 

E ............ Induction ........................................... 1 67.78 0.68 0.84 

F ............. Induction ........................................... 1 67.93 0.56 0.70 

Small ................................................. A ............ Electric Coil ...................................... 2 64.61 0.54 0.67 

B ............ Electric Smooth ................................ 3 60.44 1.55 1.93 

D ............ Induction ........................................... 2 

3 

64.10 

60.89 

1.04 

2.70 

1.29 

3.35 

E ............ Induction ........................................... 2 62.86 1.08 1.34 

aValues describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance 

heating elements. b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from test-to-test. 

The results in Table III.5 for carbon 

steel test blocks are comparable to the 

test results for the aluminum test blocks 

presented in Table III.3. The mean 

efficiencies for the carbon steel blocks 

were slightly lower than the aluminum 

test blocks on each surface unit for the 

conventional cooking tops (Cooking 

Tops A, B, and C), but the means of the 

two test block types still fell within the 

95-percent confidence intervals for each 

surface unit. The carbon steel blocks 

produced results that were just as 

repeatable as the aluminum test blocks, 

with standard deviations less than 3 

percent for all surface units, and 95- 

percent confidence intervals all within 

4 percent of the mean efficiency. 

Based on these test results, DOE 

concludes that the carbon steel test 

blocks are a reasonable substitute for the 

aluminum test blocks. However, the 

heating that occurs using a solid block 

of ferromagnetic material may not be 

representative of how induction cooking 

tops actually operate in real-world 

situations. Typically, induction cooking 

tops only induce current in a thin layer 

of ferromagnetic material in the cooking 

vessel, which then heats up the food 

load. For this reason, DOE conducted 

further investigations with hybrid test 

blocks, as discussed below. 

3. Carbon Steel Hybrid Test Blocks 

DOE conducted additional tests using 

hybrid test blocks to more closely reflect 

the real-world operation of induction 

cooking tops. DOE fabricated carbon 

steel hybrid test blocks using a 0.25 inch 

base of carbon steel 1018 with a body 

of aluminum 6061. Typical cookware is 

slightly thinner gauge than this base, but 

DOE chose the base to preclude against 

warping while the block heats up. 

Additionally, DOE observed that the 

portable induction unit is packaged 

with a steel plate adaptor of roughly the 

same thickness as DOE’s carbon steel 

base to allow for cooking with nonferromagnetic cookware. 

Table III.6 provides the component 

and overall properties of the carbon 

steel hybrid test blocks. DOE varied the 

height of the aluminum bodies so the 

overall heat capacities of the hybrid 

blocks would match the solid aluminum 

test blocks described in section III.C.1. 

TABLE III.6—CARBON STEEL HYBRID TEST BLOCK SPECIFICATIONS

Test block size Block diameter 

(in) 

Block height 

(in) 

Block weight 

(lb) 

Specific heat 

(Btu/lb-°F) 

Heat capacity 

(Btu/°F) 

Small Carbon Steel Base ................................ 6.25 0.25 2.06 0.116 0.24 

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

Small Total ................................................ 6.25 2.75 9.52 0.21 1.96 

Large Carbon Steel Base ................................ 9 0.25 4.27 0.116 0.5 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6238 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

4Rust also formed on the solid carbon steel test 

blocks, which could affect heat transfer and 

repeatability. These issues would likely be more 

significant for the carbon steel hybrid test blocks 

due to the additional heat transfer surface between 

the base and the test block. 

TABLE III.6—CARBON STEEL HYBRID TEST BLOCK SPECIFICATIONS—Continued 

Test block size Block diameter 

(in) 

Block height 

(in) 

Block weight 

(lb) 

Specific heat 

(Btu/lb-°F) 

Heat capacity 

(Btu/°F) 

Large Total ................................................ 9 2.97 21.12 0.21 4.37 

DOE tested the carbon steel hybrid 

test blocks on all six cooking tops in the 

test sample. Table III.7 summarizes the 

test results using the carbon steel hybrid 

test blocks for surface units on these 

products. As described in section III.C.1, 

DOE did not test multiple surface units 

with equal diameters on the same 

cooking top, and the surface unit 

numbers included in the table are used 

to differentiate between surface units on 

the same cooking top. 

TABLE III.7—CARBON STEEL HYBRID TEST BLOCK RESULTS

Test block size Cooking 

top Heating technology Surface unit 

Mean 

efficiency 

% 

Standard 

deviation % 

95-Percent 

confidence 

interval 

(±) % 

Large ................................................. A ............ Electric Coil ...................................... 1 67.78 1.87 2.32 

B ............ Electric Smooth ................................ 1 52.03 0.78 0.97 

2 63.59 0.64 0.79 

C ............ Gas ................................................... 1 a b 18.64 a 0.59 a 0.93 

D ............ Induction ........................................... 1 65.94 2.68 3.32 

E ............ Induction ........................................... 1 68.17 1.06 1.31 

F ............. Induction ........................................... 1 60.10 3.21 3.99 

A ............ Electric Coil ...................................... 2 64.44 1.87 2.32 

B ............ Electric Smooth ................................ 3 59.71 1.06 1.32 

Small ................................................. D ............ Induction ........................................... 2 

3 

63.26 

62.88 

0.79 

0.65 

0.98 

0.81 

E ............ Induction ........................................... 2 63.27 1.19 1.48 

aValues describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance 

heating elements. b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from test-to-test. 

The carbon steel hybrid test block 

results in Table III.7 are similar to both 

the aluminum and carbon steel test 

block results presented in Table III.3 

and Table III.5. The efficiencies for the 

conventional cooking tops are slightly 

lower than with the aluminum test 

blocks, and also slightly lower than with 

the carbon steel test blocks, but within 

the 95-percent confidence intervals. 

However, it is not clear what effect the 

hybrid blocks have on the efficiencies 

for the induction cooking tops. Five of 

the six induction surface units have 

efficiencies nearly equal to or slightly 

higher than with the single carbon steel 

test blocks. However, the efficiency for 

surface unit on Cooking Top F dropped 

by more than 7 percent. 

In addition, after conducting multiple 

tests using the carbon steel hybrid test 

blocks, DOE observed rust forming on 

the carbon steel base. DOE was 

concerned that the rust could lead to 

inconsistent heat transfer between the 

carbon steel base and the aluminum 

body based on the amount of rust 

present, which would affect thermal 

contact.4 Thus, DOE conducted another 

set of tests using hybrid test blocks with 

stainless steel 430 bases that would be 

more resistant to rust formation. 

4.Stainless Steel Hybrid Test Blocks 

The specific heats and densities of 

carbon steel and stainless steel are 

similar, so bases with the same 

dimensions have similar heat capacities. 

Therefore, the same aluminum test 

bodies were used for both sets of hybrid 

block tests. Table III.8 describes the 

component and overall properties of the 

stainless steel hybrid test blocks. 

TABLE III.8—STAINLESS STEEL HYBRID TEST BLOCK SPECIFICATIONS

Test block size Block diameter 

(in) 

Block height 

(in) 

Block weight 

(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 0.2 1.96 

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

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

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

DOE tested the stainless steel hybrid 

test blocks on all six cooking tops in the 

test sample. Table III.9 summarizes the 

test results for surface units on these 

products using the stainless steel hybrid 

test blocks. As described in section 

III.C.1, DOE did not test multiple 

surface units with equal diameters on 

the same cooking top, and the surface 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6239 

unit numbers included in the table are used to differentiate between surface 

units on the same cooking top. 

TABLE III.9—STAINLESS STEEL HYBRID TEST BLOCK RESULTS

Test block size Cooking 

top Heating technology Surface unit 

Mean 

efficiency 

% 

Standard 

deviation 

% 

95-Percent 

confidence 

interval 

(±) % 

Large ................................................. A ............ Electric Coil ...................................... 1 64.52 0.87 1.08 

B ............ Electric Smooth ................................ 1 49.19 0.46 0.57 

2 59.60 0.46 0.57 

C ............ Gas ................................................... 1 a b 16.27 a 1.16 a 1.85 

D ............ Induction ........................................... 1 64.19 1.28 1.59 

E ............ Induction ........................................... 1 64.32 0.91 1.13 

F ............. Induction ........................................... 1 55.57 1.47 1.83 

Small ................................................. A ............ Electric Coil ...................................... 2 62.87 2.36 2.93 

B ............ Electric Smooth ................................ 3 57.75 0.87 1.08 

D ............ Induction ........................................... 2 62.83 1.47 1.83 

3 60.29 0.68 0.84 

E ............ Induction ........................................... 2 61.81 1.19 1.47 

aValues describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance 

heating elements. b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from test-to-test. 

The stainless steel hybrid test block 

efficiency results in Table III.9 are on 

average 2.5 percentage points lower 

than those for the carbon steel hybrid 

test blocks shown in Table III.7. 

However, the standard deviations and 

95-percent confidence intervals are less 

than for the aluminum test blocks, the 

carbon steel test blocks, and the carbon 

steel hybrid test blocks, as shown in 

Table III.10. 

TABLE III.10—TEST BLOCK COMPARISON

Test block type Average efficiency 

% 

Average standard 

deviation 

% 

Average 95-percent 

confidence interval 

(±) % 

Aluminum ..................................................................................... a 56.02 a 1.40 a 1.80 

Carbon Steel ................................................................................ 59.78 1.36 1.71 

Carbon Steel Hybrid .................................................................... 59.15 1.36 1.71 

Stainless Steel Hybrid ................................................................. 56.60 1.10 1.40 

aValues describe data for electric resistance and gas flame surface units only. For comparison, the average efficiencies for the carbon steel, 

carbon steel hybrid, and stainless steel hybrid blocks on these surface units are 54.99 percent, 54.36 percent, and 51.70 percent respectively. 

Because the stainless steel hybrid test 

blocks produce the most repeatable 

results from test-to-test, DOE is 

proposing that these test blocks be 

required for testing induction cooking 

tops. DOE is also proposing to amend 

the existing cooking tops test procedure 

to incorporate the stainless steel hybrid 

blocks for cooking tops with gas flame 

or electric resistance heating. This 

would ensure consistency in results 

among all products covered by the 

proposed definition of conventional 

cooking tops. DOE notes that, although 

the efficiency results using the stainless 

steel hybrid test blocks for the cooking 

tops with gas flame or electric resistance 

heating are on average 4.3 percentage 

points lower than for the aluminum test 

blocks, the relative efficiencies among 

the various surface units remain 

generally unchanged. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

require the use of stainless steel hybrid 

test blocks for testing all cooking tops 

that would be covered by the proposed 

definition of conventional cooking tops 

in an amended cooking products test 

procedure, including the potential 

burden associated with the requirement 

for such new test equipment. 

5.Water-Heating Tests 

To investigate additional test methods 

that may be representative of actual 

consumer usage, DOE conducted a test 

series based on water heating in place 

of metal block heating. Water provides 

a heating medium that is more 

representative of actual consumer use, 

because many foods cooked on a 

cooking top have a relatively high liquid 

content. However, water heating 

introduces additional sources of 

variability not present for metal block 

heating—the temperature distribution in 

the water is not always uniform, the 

properties of the water can vary from lab 

to lab, and the ambient conditions and 

cookware surface effects can have a 

large impact on the water boiling and 

evaporating throughout the test. 

DOE is aware of a draft cooking 

products test method based on water 

heating that is under development by 

the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC). A draft amendment 

to IEC Standard 60350–2 Edition 1.0 

‘‘Household electric cooking 

appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Method for 

measuring performance’’ (Draft IEC 

60350 Amendment) specifies heating 

the water to a certain temperature at the 

maximum energy input setting, and 

then turning the unit to a lower energy 

input setting for an extended simmering 

period. 

The Draft IEC 60350 Amendment 

specifies the quantity of water to be 

heated in a standardized cooking vessel 

whose size is based on the diameter of 

the surface unit. For this analysis, DOE 

chose the two IEC-specified cooking 

vessels with diameters closest to the 

diameters specified for the aluminum 

test blocks (6.25 inches and 9 inches). 

The cookware consists of a thin-walled 

stainless steel cylinder attached to a flat 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6240 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5Section 7.1.Z2 of the Draft IEC 60350 

Amendment, ‘‘Cookware and water amount’’, 

specifies the general construction of the cookware, 

and Table Z3, ‘‘Sizes of standardized cookware and 

water amounts’’, specifies the dimensions of the 

cookware and quantity of water based on the 

diameter or the surface unit under test. 

stainless steel 430 base plate. The test 

method also specifies an aluminum lid 

with vent holes and a small center hole 

to fix the thermocouple in the center of 

the pot. Table III.11 describes the IEC 

cookware and the quantity of water used 

for DOE’s testing.5

TABLE III.11—IEC COOKWARE AND WATER SPECIFICATIONS

Cookware size 

Cookware 

diameter 

(in) 

Base thickness 

(in) 

Total height 

(in) 

Lid diameter 

(in) 

Water weight 

(lbs) 

Small ................................................................ 5.91 0.24 4.92 6.5 2.27 

Large ................................................................ 9.45 0.24 4.92 10.43 5.95 

The Draft IEC 60350 Amendment 

specifies testing at the maximum energy 

input rate until a calculated turndown 

temperature is reached, at which point 

the energy input rate is reduced to a 

setting that will maintain the water 

temperature above 194 °F (a simmering 

temperature), but as close to 194 °F as 

possible without additional adjustment 

of the low-power setting. The test ends 

20 minutes after the temperature 

increases above 194 °F. The turndown 

temperature is calculated based on an 

initial test to determine the number of 

degrees that the temperature continues 

to rise after turning the unit off from the 

maximum energy input setting. Energy 

consumption is measured throughout 

the entire test, and the final metric 

describes the energy in Watt-hours (Wh) 

per 1000 grams (g) of water necessary to 

reach and maintain the simmering 

temperature. 

DOE observed during some tests that 

the water approached boiling even at 

194 °F, and a significant amount of the 

water evaporated or boiled off for all of 

the tests. Additionally, the simmering 

water temperatures varied from test-totest even at the same reduced setting. 

The test method only requires that the 

simmering temperature stay above 194 

°F for a valid test. Certain tests would 

produce simmering temperatures 

around 196 °F, close to the 194 °F goal, 

while others would rise above 200 °F at 

the same setting. Both tests would be 

deemed valid under the method in the 

Draft IEC 60350 Amendment method, 

but the normalized energy use results 

would vary because the 200 °F test 

would use significantly more energy. 

To address this concern, DOE 

developed additional calculations to 

estimate the efficiency of the waterheating process. The calculations factor 

in the total temperature rise of the water 

to account for differences in simmering 

temperatures, and the total amount of 

water lost to boiling or evaporation 

during the test. DOE’s method entails 

measuring the mass of the cookware 

plus water at the start and end of the 

test. Table III.12 shows the waterheating efficiency results using the DOE 

calculation method. 

TABLE III.12—WATER-HEATING EFFICIENCY TEST RESULTS

Cookware size Cooking 

top Heating technology Surface unit 

Mean 

efficiency 

% 

Standard 

deviation 

% 

95-percent 

confidence 

interval (±) 

% 

Large ................................................. A ............ Electric Coil ...................................... 1 79.81 1.66 2.06 

B ............ Electric ..............................................

Smooth .............................................

1 

2 

61.81 

75.88 

2.83 

3.11 

3.52 

3.86 

C ............ Gas ................................................... 1 a b 26.29 a 2.83 a 4.51 

D ............ Induction ........................................... 1 81.31 0.28 0.34 

E ............ Induction ........................................... 1 79.21 0.65 0.81 

F ............. Induction ........................................... 1 74.17 2.55 3.17 

Small ................................................. A ............ Electric Coil ...................................... 2 76.99 1.65 2.05 

B ............ Electric ..............................................

Smooth .............................................

3 68.09 4.12 5.11 

D ............ Induction ........................................... 2 

3 

79.35 

80.67 

0.37 

1.71 

0.46 

2.13 

E ............ Induction ........................................... 2 75.99 2.03 2.52 

aValues describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance 

heating elements. b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from test-to-test. 

Even after considering differences in 

the final water temperature and the 

amount of water boiled or evaporated 

during the test, the variability for the 

water-heating tests was still greater than 

for the metal block tests. Table III.13 

compares the standard deviations for 

each surface unit tested with both the 

water-heating and metal block-heating 

tests. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6241 

6 DOE pursued amendments to Appendix I 

addressing standby and off mode energy for 

microwave ovens as part of a separate rulemaking. 

The most recent notice for this rulemaking is the 

SNOPR published on May 16, 2012. 76 FR 72322. 

TABLE III.13—OVERALL RESULTS COMPARISON—COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION

Test block size Cooking 

top Heating technology Surface unit 

Standard deviation 

Aluminum 

% 

Carbon 

steel 

% 

Carbon 

steel 

hybrid 

% 

Stainless 

steel 

hybrid 

% 

Waterheating 

efficiency 

% 

Large ......................... A ............ Electric Coil .............. 1 2.22 1.59 1.87 0.87 1.66 

B ............ Electric ......................

Smooth .....................

1 

2 

0.64 

1.06 

1.28 

2.03 

0.78 

0.64 

0.46 

0.46 

2.83 

3.11 

C ............ Gas ........................... 1 a 1.01 a 0.92 a 0.59 a 1.16 a 2.83 

D ............ Induction ................... 1 N/A 2.30 2.68 1.28 0.28 

E ............ Induction ................... 1 N/A 0.68 1.06 0.91 0.65 

F ............. Induction ................... 1 N/A 0.56 3.21 1.47 2.55 

Small ......................... A ............ Electric Coil .............. 2 2.73 0.54 1.87 2.36 1.65 

B ............ Electric Smooth ........ 3 0.73 1.55 1.06 0.87 4.12 

D ............ Induction ................... 2 

3 

N/A 

N/A 

1.04 

2.70 

0.79 

0.65 

1.47 

0.68 

0.37 

1.71 

E ............ Induction ................... 2 N/A 1.08 1.19 1.19 2.03 

Average ................ ................................... ................ 1.40 1.36 1.36 1.10 1.98 

aValues describe data for four tests, not five. 

The water-heating test variability 

could potentially be reduced by more 

stringent tolerances on the ambient 

conditions. 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. 

Because the water-heating tests do not 

show an improvement in repeatability 

from test-to-test under the current DOE 

test conditions compared to the metal 

block tests, and because achieving 

closer ambient temperature tolerances 

would potentially place a high burden 

on manufacturers, DOE is proposing to 

use stainless steel hybrid test blocks in 

the test procedure for all products 

covered under the proposed definition 

of conventional cooking tops. 

DOE acknowledges that the waterheating tests may better reflect actual 

consumer behavior for cooking tops, 

and invites comment on whether waterheating tests should be considered in 

place of the metal block-heating tests. 

DOE also invites comment on the 

appropriate test method and conditions 

for water-heating tests, and the burden 

that would be incurred by more 

stringent specifications for ambient 

conditions. 

6. Non-Circular Electric Surface Units 

As discussed in the beginning of 

section III.C, the small test block (6.25 

inches diameter) is used for testing 

surface units with diameters of 7 inches 

or less, and the large test block (9 inches 

diameter) is used for electric surface 

units with diameters greater than 7 

inches and all gas surface units. These 

provisions do not address how to 

determine the proper test block size for 

testing non-circular electric surface 

units. 

DOE is aware that the Draft IEC 60350 

Amendment requires measuring the 

dimensions of each side of rectangular 

or similar electric surface units, and by 

measuring the major and minor 

dimensions of elliptical or similar 

electric surface units. For these types of 

surface units, the smallest dimension is 

used to determine the cookware size 

according to the Draft IEC 60350 

Amendment. 

DOE lacks information on the size of 

the cookware consumers typically use 

for non-circular surface units. Given this 

lack of consumer use data, and given the 

potential non-representative thermal 

behavior of a test block in which a 

portion of the bottom is not exposed to 

the surface unit, DOE proposes to 

amend section 3.2.1 of Appendix I to 

replace the reference to an electric 

surface unit’s diameter with the electric 

surface unit’s smallest dimension to 

account for surface units of all shapes. 

This is consistent with the method 

included in the Draft IEC 60350 

Amendment. DOE does not propose to 

change the requirement that all gas 

surface units be tested using the large 

test block. 

DOE invites comments on whether 

using the smallest dimension of an 

electric surface unit is appropriate for 

determining the proper test block size. 

D. Standby and Off Mode Test 

Procedure 

EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require 

that DOE amend its test procedures for 

all covered residential products, 

including cooking products, to include 

measures of standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption, if technically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 

Accordingly, DOE recently conducted a 

separate rulemaking for conventional 

cooking products, dishwashers, and 

dehumidifiers to address standby and 

off mode energy consumption.6 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. 

Today’s NOPR proposes a change to 

the definition of ‘‘conventional cooking 

top’’ to include induction technologies. 

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. DOE invites comment on whether 

induction cooking products require 

separate consideration for standby mode 

and off mode testing. 

E. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6242 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7Estimated average revenue is based on financial 

information provided for the two small businesses 

in reports provided by Dun and Bradstreet. 

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)) 

DOE tentatively concludes 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. 

The test procedure proposed in 

today’s NOPR follows the same method 

currently included in Appendix I for 

testing cooking tops, but would replace 

the aluminum test blocks with stainless 

steel hybrid blocks. DOE estimates 

current testing represents a cost of 

roughly $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). The 

proposed reusable test blocks would 

represent an additional one-time 

expense of approximately $500 for each 

test block, or $1000 for each pair of large 

and small diameter test blocks. No 

additional instrumentation would be 

required beyond what is required in the 

current test procedure. DOE does not 

believe this additional cost represents 

an excessive burden for test labs or 

manufacturers given the significant 

investments necessary to manufacture, 

test and market consumer appliances, as 

described further in section IV.B below. 

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. This additional step in 

the test procedure would increase the 

test duration by about 2 minutes per 

surface unit. 

DOE concluded in the test procedure 

rulemaking for cooking products 

preceding today’s NOPR, completed 

recently by the publication of the 

October 2012 Final Rule (see section I.B. 

for the rulemaking history for today’s 

NOPR), that the amended test procedure 

is not unduly burdensome to conduct. 

In today’s NOPR, DOE further 

concludes, given the small magnitude of 

the proposed changes (both in terms of 

the new test blocks and the time needed 

to take the test), that the newly 

proposed amended test procedure for 

cooking products would not be 

unreasonably burdensome to conduct. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 

for any rule that by law must be 

proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/ 

gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. The proposed rule would amend 

the test method for measuring the 

energy efficiency of conventional 

cooking tops and ranges to include test 

methods applicable to induction 

cooking products. 

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 

two small businesses that manufacture 

conventional cooking products. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the proposed rule would 

not have a significant impact on either 

small or large manufacturers under the 

applicable provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. The proposed rule 

would amend DOE’s test procedures for 

cooking products by incorporating 

testing provisions to address active 

mode energy consumption for induction 

cooking products that will be used to 

develop and test compliance with any 

future energy conservation standards 

that may be established by DOE. The 

test procedure amendments involve the 

measurement of active mode energy 

consumption through the use of a 

different metal test block than is 

currently specified for conventional 

cooking tops. The proposed 

amendments would also apply for 

testing products currently considered 

conventional cooking tops. DOE 

estimates a cost for this new equipment 

of approximately $1000. Additionally, 

DOE estimates a cost of roughly $6,000 

for manufacturers to test induction 

cooking products not currently covered 

by the test procedure. This estimate 

assumes $500 per test, as described in 

section III.E, with up to 12 total tests 

needed assuming three induction 

cooking top models with four individual 

tests per cooking top model. This cost 

is small compared to the average annual 

revenue of the two identified small 

businesses, which DOE estimates to be 

over $40 million.7 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6243 

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 conventional 

cooking products must certify to DOE 

that their products comply with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

conventional cooking products, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including conventional cooking 

products. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

There is currently no information 

collection requirement related 

specifically to induction cooking tops. 

In the event that DOE proposes an 

energy conservation standard with 

which manufacturers must demonstrate 

compliance, or otherwise proposes to 

require the collection of information 

derived from the testing of induction 

cooking tops according to this test 

procedure, DOE will seek OMB 

approval of such information collection 

requirement. DOE will seek approval 

either through a proposed amendment 

to the information collection 

requirement approved under OMB 

control number 1910–1400 or as a 

separate proposed information 

collection requirement. 

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 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6244 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 today’s 

proposed rule according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 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 

today’s proposed rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 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. 

Today’s regulatory action to amend 

the test procedure for measuring the 

energy efficiency of conventional 

cooking products is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. 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 amendments proposed 

in today’s NOPR do not authorize or 

require the use of any commercial 

standards. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. Please 

note that foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE as 

soon as possible by contacting Ms. 

Edwards to initiate the necessary 

procedures. Please also note that those 

wishing to bring laptops into the 

Forrestal Building will be required to 

obtain a property pass. Visitors should 

avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 

45 minutes. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via Webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to Webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/57. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their 

systems are compatible with the 

Webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements For Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this NOPR. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make a follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6245 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this NOPR. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this NOPR. 

Any comments submitted must identify 

the NOPR for Test Procedures for 

Conventional Cooking Products, and 

provide docket number EERE–2012– 

BT–TP–0013 and/or regulatory 

information number (RIN) number 

1904–AC71. 

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 are 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

6246 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 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. Proposed Amended Definitions 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed amended definitions of 

‘‘conventional cooking top’’ and ‘‘active 

mode.’’ (See section III.A) 

2. Stainless Steel Hybrid Test Blocks 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

require the use of stainless steel hybrid 

test blocks for testing all cooking tops 

that would be covered by the proposed 

definition of conventional cooking tops 

in an amended cooking products test 

procedure, including the potential 

burden associated with the requirement 

for such new test equipment. (See 

section III.C.4) 

3. Water-Heating Test 

DOE invites comment on whether 

water-heating tests should be 

considered in place of the metal blockheating tests, and on the appropriate 

water-heating test method and 

conditions. DOE also invites comment 

on the burden that would be incurred by 

more stringent specifications for 

ambient conditions. (See section III.C.5) 

4. Non-Circular Electric Surface Units 

DOE invites comments on whether 

using the smallest dimension of an 

electric surface unit is appropriate for 

determining the proper test block size. 

(See section III.C.6) 

5. Standby and Off Mode 

DOE requests comment on whether 

induction cooking products include any 

unique features or operational modes 

that would not be covered by the 

definitions and standby and off mode 

test procedures included in the October 

2012 Final Rule. 77 FR 65942. (See 

section III.D) 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

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, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 18, 

2013. 

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 is a 

household cooking appliance within a 

class of kitchen ranges and ovens, each 

of which consists of a horizontal surface 

containing one or more surface units 

that utilize a gas flame, electric 

resistance heating, or electric inductive 

heating. 

* * * * * 

Appendix I—[Amended] 

■ 3. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the Note; 

■ b. Revising section 1.1 in section 1. 

Definitions; 

■ c. Revising sections 2.7, 2.7.2, and 

2.7.3 in section 2. Test Conditions; 

■ d. Revising sections 3.1.2 and 3.3.2 in 

section 3. Test Methods and 

Measurements; and 

■ e. Revising sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 

in section 4. Calculation of Derived 

Results From Test Measurements. 

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 made after April 29, 2013 

related to standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption of conventional ranges, 

conventional cooking tops (except for 

induction cooking products), and 

conventional ovens, and any representation 

made after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER 

FINAL RULE PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] related to any energy 

consumption of induction cooking products, 

must be based upon results generated under 

this test procedure. 

Any representation made after July 17, 

2013 related to standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption of microwave ovens 

must also be based upon this test procedure. 

Any representation related to standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption of 

microwave ovens made between February 17, 

2013 and July 17, 2013 may be based upon 

results generated under this test procedure or 

upon the test procedure as contained in the 

10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised as 

of January 1, 2012. 

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. 

* * * * * 

2. Test Conditions 

* * * * * 

2.7 Test blocks for conventional oven and 

cooking top. The test blocks for conventional 

ovens and the test block bodies for 

conventional cooking tops shall be made of 

aluminum alloy No. 6061, with a specific 

heat of 0.23 Btu/lb- °F (0.96 kJ/[kg ÷ °C]) and 

with any temper that will give a coefficient 

of thermal conductivity of 1073.3 to 1189.1 

Btu-in/h-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 flat to within 0.002 inch 

(0.051 mm) TIR (total indicator reading). 

Determine the actual weight of each test 

block, test block body, and test block base 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 20 / Wednesday, January 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 6247 

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. 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 Large test block for conventional 

cooking top. The large test block shall 

comprise a body and separate base. The large 

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 large 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 large test block body shall 

not be fixed to the base, and shall be centered 

over the base for testing. 

* * * * * 

3. Test Methods and Measurements 

* * * * * 

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 1.12 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 large test block, 

W4 and W5, shall be used on electric surface 

units with a smallest dimension over 7 

inches (178 mm) and on all gas surface units. 

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. After 15±0.1 minutes at the reduced 

energy setting, turn off the surface unit under 

test. 

* * * * * 

3.3.2 Record measured test block, test 

block body, and test block base weights W1, 

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

* * * * * 

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

* * * * * 

4.2 * * * 

4.2.1 * * * 

4.2.1.1 Electric surface unit cooking 

efficiency. Calculate the cooking efficiency, 

EffSU, of the electric surface unit under test, 

defined as: 

Where: 

WTB = measured weight of test block body, 

W2 or W4, 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 or W5, 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 Btu’s. 

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 

as measured in section 3.3.2 of this 

appendix, expressed in pounds (kg). 

WB = measured weight of test block base 

as measured in section 3.3.2 of this 

appendix, 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 Btu’s. 

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 Btu’s per 

standard cubic foot (kJ/L) of gas. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–01526 Filed 1–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1319; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–179–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to revise an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to all The Boeing Company 

Model 757 airplanes. The existing AD 

currently requires revising the 

maintenance program by incorporating 

new and revised fuel tank system 

limitations in the Airworthiness 

Limitations (AWLs) section of the 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness; and requires the initial 

inspection of certain repetitive AWL 

inspections to phase-in those 

inspections, and repair if necessary. 

Since we issued that AD, we have found 

errors in paragraph references in the 

existing AD. This proposed AD would 

revise those paragraph references to 

refer to the correct paragraphs. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent the 

potential for ignition sources inside fuel 

tanks caused by latent failures, 

alterations, repairs, or maintenance 

actions, which in combination with 

flammable fuel vapors, could result in a 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with EP30JA13.011</GPH> EP30JA13.012</GPH>