33106 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178. No 

changes in those requirements as a 

result of this action are necessary. 

Should any changes become necessary, 

they would be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

California olive handlers. As with all 

Federal marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Laurel May at 

the previously-mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Thirty days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2012 fiscal year began on January 1, 

2012, and the marketing order requires 

that the rate of assessment for each 

fiscal year apply to all assessable olives 

handled during such fiscal year; (2) the 

Committee needs to have sufficient 

funds to pay its expenses which are 

incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) 

handlers are aware of this action which 

was unanimously recommended by the 

Committee at a public meeting and is 

similar to other assessment rate actions 

issued in past years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932 

Olives, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 932 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 932.230 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 932.230 Assessment rate. 

On and after January 1, 2012, an 

assessment rate of $31.32 per ton is 

established for California olives. 

Dated: May 30, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13526 Filed 6–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–TP–0023] 

RIN 1904–AC26 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Microwave Ovens 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) initiated a test procedure 

rulemaking to develop active mode 

testing methodologies for residential 

microwave ovens. DOE conducted 

testing to evaluate potential test 

procedure amendments to provide 

methods of measuring energy use for 

microwave ovens, including both 

microwave-only ovens and convection 

microwave cooking ovens. In today’s 

notice, DOE presents the results from 

these testing investigations and requests 

comment and additional information on 

these results and potential amendments 

to the microwave oven test procedure. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this notice 

submitted no later than July 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the Notice of Data 

Availability for Microwave Ovens, and 

provide docket number EERE–2010– 

BT–TP–0023 and/or RIN 1904–AC26. 

Comments may be submitted using any 

of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: MWO-2010-TP0023@ee.doe.gov. Include docket EERE– 

2010–BT–TP–0023 and/or RIN 1904– 

AC26 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 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.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%252BPR% 

252BN%252BO%252BSR;rpp=10; 

po=0;D=EERE-2010-BT-TP-0023. This 

Web page contains a link to the docket 

for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Wes Anderson, 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: 202–586–7335. Email: 

Wes.Anderson@ee.doe.gov. 

In the Office of the General Counsel, 

contact Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Ave. SW., Room 6B–159, 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

202–287–6307; Email: 

Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Discussion 

A. Test Units 

B. Water Load Microwave-Only Testing 

C. Reheat Food Simulation Mixture Testing 

D. Convection Microwave Cooking Testing 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33107 

E. Convection Microwave Oven 

Convection-Only Cooking Testing 

F. Cooling Down Energy Use 

G. Additional Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment 

I. Background 

On July 22, 2010, DOE published in 

the Federal Register a final rule for the 

microwave oven test procedure 

rulemaking (July 2010 TP Repeal Final 

Rule), in which it repealed the 

regulatory provisions for establishing 

the cooking efficiency test procedure for 

microwave ovens under the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). 75 

FR 42579. In the July 2010 TP Repeal 

Final Rule, DOE determined that the 

existing microwave oven test procedure 

to measure the cooking efficiency, 

which was based on the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

Standard 705–1998 and Amendment 2– 

1993, ‘‘Methods for Measuring the 

Performance of Microwave Ovens for 

Households and Similar Purposes’’ (IEC 

Standard 705), did not produce 

representative and repeatable test 

results. DOE stated that it was unaware 

of any test procedures that had been 

developed that addressed the concerns 

with the microwave oven cooking 

efficiency test procedure. DOE was also 

unaware of any research or data on 

consumer usage indicating what a 

representative food load would be, or 

any data showing the repeatability of 

test results. 75 FR 42579, 42581. In 

addition, in comments received in 

response to a separate test procedure 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 17, 2008, which addressed 

provisions for measuring standby mode 

and off mode energy use for microwave 

ovens (73 FR 62134), interested parties 

commented that pure water has 

relatively low specific resistivity, and 

actual food items that might be cooked 

in a microwave oven would have more 

salts and thus absorb microwave energy 

more efficiently than pure water. 

Interested parties stated that, as a result, 

testing with a water load would likely 

result in lower efficiency measurements 

than would be expected from using 

actual food products. 

On July 22, 2010, DOE also published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

public meeting to initiate a separate 

rulemaking process to consider new 

provisions for measuring microwave 

oven energy efficiency in active 

(cooking) mode. 75 FR 42611. DOE held 

the public meeting on September 16, 

2010 to discuss and receive comments 

on several issues related to active mode 

test procedures for microwave ovens to 

consider in developing a new test 

procedure. DOE received no data or 

comments at or after the September 16, 

2010 public meeting suggesting 

potential methodologies for test 

procedures for microwave oven active 

mode. 

On October 24, 2011, DOE published 

a Request for Information (RFI) notice to 

announce that it has initiated a test 

procedure rulemaking to develop active 

mode testing methodologies for 

microwave ovens. 76 FR 65631. DOE 

specifically sought information, data, 

and comments regarding representative 

and repeatable methods for measuring 

the energy use of microwave ovens, in 

particular for the microwave-only and 

convection microwave cooking (i.e., 

microwave plus convection and any 

other means of cooking) functions. In 

particular, DOE sought comment on the 

following: (1) The characteristics of food 

loads representative of consumer use, 

(2) the repeatability of energy use 

measurements using different food 

loads, and (3) consumer usage data on 

the hours of operation in active mode, 

standby mode, and off mode for the 

development of an integrated energy use 

metric. In response to the August 2011 

RFI, DOE received comments from the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) and Whirlpool 

Corporation (Whirlpool) on a number of 

these test procedure issues. These 

comments are summarized below. 

Food Load Repeatability and 

Reproducibility. AHAM and Whirlpool 

commented that the repeatability (testto-test within one laboratory) and 

reproducibility (lab-to-lab) must be 

considered in developing an active 

mode test procedure for microwave 

ovens. AHAM and Whirlpool are both 

unaware of any existing test procedures 

that have successfully incorporated 

actual food loads, noting that the 

European Committee for 

Electrotechnical Standardization 

(CENELEC) has conducted testing with 

different food loads, including real and 

artificial food as well as salt water, and 

concluded that food loads cannot meet 

CENELEC’s requirements of 

repeatability and reproducibility. 

(AHAM, No. 11 at p. 2, Whirlpool, No. 

10 at pp. 1, 3) According to Whirlpool, 

the most commonly microwaved foods 

are hot cereal, bacon, pre-made baked 

goods, and frozen vegetables. However, 

Whirlpool stated the following about the 

lack of reproducibility of various foods: 

• The nature and behavior of fresh 

foods varies over the year and by 

geographical region; 

• Prefabricated foods change 

formulation over time and without 

notice. Various items are routinely 

added to and removed from the market; 

• The composition of meats such as 

chicken, beef, and pork vary from not 

only by region, but also within each 

meat category, for example in the 

amount of fat or the size of granulation. 

(Whirlpool, No. 10 at p. 3) 

AHAM and Whirlpool also 

commented that the IEC evaluated gels, 

but they were abandoned due to poor 

repeatability and excessive preparation 

time. (AHAM, No. 11 at p. 2, Whirlpool, 

No. 10 at p. 3) Whirlpool added that IEC 

Standard 60705 Edition 4.0, 2010–04, 

‘‘Household microwave ovens— 

Methods for measuring performance,’’ 

(IEC Standard 60705 Fourth Edition) 

contains food loads, but that those are 

used for performance testing only and 

are not reproducible as is stated in the 

test standard. (Whirlpool, No. 10 at p. 2) 

Whirlpool stated that the final 

temperature of the load must be 

correlated to normal usage (i.e., heating 

food to ‘‘eating temperature’’). AHAM 

and Whirlpool commented that a welldefined final temperature of food loads 

cannot be determined with sufficient 

accuracy to attain an acceptable level of 

repeatability. According to Whirlpool, 

infrared measurements will only detect 

surface temperature and thermocouples 

will just measure temperature in a few 

spots and as a result, cold/hot spots 

inside the food may not be found. 

(AHAM, No. 11 at p. 2, Whirlpool, No. 

10 at pp. 2, 3) 

Convection Microwave Ovens. 

Whirlpool noted that convection 

microwave ovens represent less than 

4 percent of U.S. shipments and that 

qualitative data suggests that even when 

consumers own a convection microwave 

oven, the use of the convection 

microwave cooking function is very 

limited. Whirlpool commented that the 

European Commission established a 

mandate to define a test method for the 

microwave-only cooking function and 

that the convection microwave cooking 

function has not been on the agenda. 

However, Whirlpool noted that 

CENELEC tested convection microwave 

ovens but was unsuccessful at 

developing repeatable and reproducible 

test loads and testing procedures for the 

reasons discussed above. (Whirlpool, 

No. 10 at p. 1, 2) 

Test Methods for DOE Test Procedure. 

Whirlpool commented that DOE should 

not attempt to develop a test procedure 

for both microwave-only and convection 

microwave ovens at this time because 

the challenge to develop just a 

microwave-only test procedure is 

significant. (Whirlpool, No. 10 at p. 1) 

AHAM commented that the issues 

associated with the test procedure are 

not unique to the United States because 

microwave ovens do not vary 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33108 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1The previous DOE microwave oven test 

procedure also provided for the calculation of 

several other measures of energy consumption, 

including cooking efficiency and annual energy 

consumption. 

significantly across countries. AHAM 

noted that microwave ovens do not 

represent a large amount of energy 

consumption as compared to other 

products, and that DOE should not 

direct its limited resources to duplicate 

what another group has adequately 

done. (AHAM, No. 11 at p. 2) 

AHAM and Whirlpool commented 

that if DOE proceeds with a test 

procedure, it should develop a test 

procedure for microwave-only ovens 

that is harmonized with IEC Standard 

60705, which is currently being updated 

based on extensive testing. AHAM and 

Whirlpool noted that the draft revised 

IEC Standard 60705, which uses varying 

water loads (1000 grams (g), 350 g, and 

275 g), was evaluated in a round robin 

testing program completed in July 2011 

and the results verified that the testing 

procedures have acceptable 

repeatability and reproducibility. 

Whirlpool also commented that the 

three amounts of water defined in the 

test procedure give good correlation to 

‘‘normal usage’’ and the water 

temperature rise of 50 degrees Celsius 

(°C) achieves eating temperature. 

(AHAM, No. 11 at p. 2, Whirlpool, No. 

10 at pp. 3–4) 

Based on DOE’s determination to 

initiate a microwave oven active mode 

test procedure rulemaking and 

comments received on the October 2011 

RFI discussed above, DOE conducted 

testing to evaluate potential 

amendments to its microwave oven test 

procedure to provide methods for 

measuring the active mode energy use 

for these products. The sections below 

present DOE’s tests results and the 

analytical approaches that it is 

considering for potential amendments to 

the microwave oven test procedure to 

measure active mode energy use. 

II. Discussion 

A. Test Units 

In order to evaluate potential 

amendments to the microwave oven test 

procedure, DOE selected a number of 

test units representative of products 

currently available on the U.S. market. 

DOE considered features such as 

installation configuration, cooking 

functions (i.e., microwave cooking, 

convection microwave cooking), rated 

output power, and rated cavity volume. 

The test units and key features are 

presented below in Table 1. Unless 

otherwise noted, the test unit numbers 

presented in Table 1 correspond to the 

test units in the tables presenting test 

results in today’s notice. 

TABLE 1—MICROWAVE OVEN TEST UNITS AND FEATURES

Product type Test unit Rated microwave 

power output (W) 

Rated cavity 

volume (ft3) 

Microwave-Only, Countertop ........................................................................................... 1 700 0.7 

2 1200 2.0 

3 1000 1.5 

4 1200 1.2 

5 1200 1.5 

Microwave-Only, Over-the-Range ................................................................................... 6 1000 1.7 

7 950 1.5 

8 1000 2.0 

9 1200 2.0 

10 1100 2.0 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................................................. 11 1000 1.2 

12 1100 1.5 

13 1000 1.0 

14 900 1.5 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................................................... 15 1050 1.7 

16 1100 1.8 

17 950 1.7 

18 950 1.7 

B. Water Load Microwave-Only Testing 

As discussed in section 0, DOE’s 

previous active mode test procedure 

incorporated portions of IEC Standard 

705. These test methods measured the 

amount of energy required to raise the 

temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 

10 °C under controlled conditions. The 

ratio of usable output power over input 

power described the energy factor (EF), 

a measure of the cooking efficiency.1

DOE noted that IEC is in the process of 

revising its current test standard for 

microwave ovens, IEC Standard 60705 

Fourth Edition. In addition to the 10 °C 

temperature rise water load test from 

IEC Standard 705, the draft revised IEC 

Standard 60705 includes a new test 

method that continues to use water as 

the cooking load. The draft revised test 

method involves measuring the energy 

consumption required to heat water 

loads of 275 g, 350 g, and 1000 g, in 400 

milliliter (ml), 900 ml, and 2000 ml 

borosilicate glass test containers, 

respectively, by 45–50 °C and 50–55 °C. 

The results from the two different 

temperature rise tests are used to 

linearly interpolate the energy 

consumption required to heat each load 

by 50 °C. The cooking cycle energy 

consumption for each water load size is 

then weighted based on consumer usage 

to calculate the weighted per-cycle 

cooking energy consumption. In 

addition to the cooking cycle energy 

consumption, the low power energy 

consumption while the microwave is 

cooling down after the completion of 

the cooking cycle is also measured for 

a 15-minute period. This energy 

consumption is then added to the 

cooking energy consumption to 

calculate an overall weighted per-cycle 

energy consumption. DOE recognizes 

that these draft revised IEC Standard 

60705 testing methods may be subject to 

changes during the IEC review process, 

however DOE decided to consider this 

latest available draft revised test method 

for potential amendments to the DOE 

test procedure. Table 2 presents the key 

differences between IEC Standard 705 

and the draft revised IEC Standard 

60705. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33109 

2Although the draft revised IEC Standard 60705 

specifies that the accuracy of ambient temperature 

and water temperature measurements to be ± 1 K 

and ± 1.5 K, respectively, testing conducted by DOE 

used thermocouples for temperature measurements 

with an accuracy of ± 0.2 °C, which meets the 

requirements of IEC Standard 705. 

TABLE 2—KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IEC STANDARD 705 AND DRAFT REVISED IEC STANDARD 60705 

Test condition IEC standard 705 Draft revised IEC standard 60705 

Test Load Type .................... Water ............................................................................... Water. 

Test Load Size ..................... 1000 g ............................................................................. 275 g, 375 g, 1000 g. 

Test Container Size ............. 2000 ml ........................................................................... 400 ml, 900 ml, 2000 ml. 

Temperature Requirements Ambient Temp.,T0 = 20 ± 2 °C ....................................... Ambient Temp.,T0 = 23 ± 2 °C. 

Starting Water Temp., T1 = T0¥(10 ± 1 °C) .................. Starting Water Temp., T1 = 10 ± 0.5 °C. 

Final Water Temp., T2 = T0 ± 1 °C ................................. Final Water Temp., T2 = 55–60 °C; 60–65 °C 

Test Load Preparation ......... Prior to the test, water load and test container are not 

allowed to equilibrate.

Prior to the test, water load and test container are allowed to equilibrate. 

Time Limit to Measure Final 

Temperature.

60 seconds ...................................................................... 20 seconds. 

Measurement Equipment 

Accuracy.

Mass ± 1 g ...................................................................... Mass ± 1 g. 

Watt-hour ± 1.5 percent .................................................. Watt-hour ± 1.0 percent. 

Temperature ± 0.25 °C over the range of 7–23 °C for 

all temperature measurements. Also specifies linearity of better than 1 percent.

Ambient temperature ± 1 Kelvin (K). 

Water temperature ± 1.5 K. 

Time ± 0.25 seconds ...................................................... Time ± 1 seconds. 

Number of Repeat Tests ..... Test is carried out three times unless the power output 

value resulting from second measurement is within 

1.5 percent of the value obtained from the first measurement.

No additional repeat tests specified. 

Cooling Down Energy Use 

Measured? 

No .................................................................................... Yes. 

For over-the-range microwave ovens, 

DOE reviewed installation instructions 

for products available on the market. All 

products equipped with a venting fan 

offer two installation conditions for the 

venting fan: (1) Exhaust air to the 

outside and (2) recirculating air back 

into the room. DOE noted that for the 

majority of products, the default 

installation configuration for the venting 

fan was for air recirculation. As a result, 

DOE conducted testing with the venting 

fan installed in the air recirculation 

configuration and did not conduct 

testing using the exhaust configuration 

with additional requirements for 

venting. 

DOE selected 15 microwave ovens in 

its test sample and conducted testing 

according to the draft revised IEC 

Standard 60705 to evaluate the 

repeatability of test results and the 

suitability for incorporating such 

methods into the DOE microwave oven 

test procedure.2 For each test unit, DOE 

conducted two to three identical repeat 

tests. Table 3 through Table 5 present 

the cooking cycle energy consumption 

test results for each water load size. 

DOE noted that for the 275 g and 350 

g water load sizes, the test-to-test 

variation expressed in terms of standard 

error ranged from roughly 0.1 percent to 

2.5 percent, with averages of 

approximately 1.1 percent. For the 1000 

g water load size, the test-to-test 

variation ranged from approximately 0.1 

percent to 0.8 percent, with an average 

of 0.44 percent. 

TABLE 3—DRAFT REVISED IEC STANDARD 60705 275 G WATER LOAD TEST RESULTS

Product type Test unit 

Cooking cycle energy use (Wh) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Microwave-Only, Countertop ........................................................... 1 34.27 34.28 34.47 34.34 0.34 

2 36.13 36.76 36.58 36.49 0.88 

3 37.97 36.95 ................ 37.46 1.93 

4 33.03 32.05 ................ 32.54 2.12 

5 34.52 35.66 ................ 35.09 2.31 

Microwave-Only, Over-the-Range ................................................... 6 35.27 34.92 ................ 35.09 0.71 

7 35.18 36.00 ................ 35.59 1.63 

9 40.14 39.19 ................ 39.67 1.70 

10 33.96 34.63 34.54 34.38 1.05 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 11 46.53 46.69 ................ 46.61 0.25 

12 45.50 46.14 45.94 45.86 0.70 

13 41.75 41.47 ................ 41.61 0.48 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................... 15 36.07 36.15 ................ 36.11 0.17 

16 38.29 37.41 38.86 38.18 1.91 

17 40.83 40.80 40.83 40.82 0.05 

Average ..................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 37.99 1.08 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33110 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—DRAFT REVISED IEC STANDARD 60705 350 G WATER LOAD TEST RESULTS

Product type Test unit 

Cooking cycle energy use (Wh) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Microwave-Only, Countertop ........................................................... 1 39.50 39.50 39.43 39.48 0.10 

2 42.81 42.87 41.26 42.31 2.16 

3 44.46 42.86 ................ 43.66 2.59 

4 39.65 39.29 ................ 39.47 0.65 

5 39.11 39.17 ................ 39.14 0.11 

Microwave-Only, Over-the-Range ................................................... 6 43.35 43.63 ................ 43.49 0.46 

7 42.74 43.76 ................ 43.25 1.68 

9 43.96 44.35 ................ 44.15 0.62 

10 40.25 39.64 40.60 40.16 1.20 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 11 55.05 54.31 ................ 54.68 0.95 

12 53.85 52.36 53.07 53.10 1.41 

13 47.43 47.64 ................ 47.54 0.31 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................... 15 42.71 42.91 ................ 42.81 0.32 

16 45.21 43.89 45.19 44.77 1.69 

17 47.59 46.28 47.63 47.17 1.62 

Average ..................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 44.34 1.06 

TABLE 5—DRAFT REVISED IEC STANDARD 60705 1000 G WATER LOAD TEST RESULTS

Product type Test unit 

Cooking cycle energy use (Wh) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Microwave-Only, Countertop ........................................................... 1 116.06 115.08 115.42 115.52 0.43 

2 106.02 105.48 105.38 105.63 0.33 

3 107.59 108.72 ................ 108.16 0.74 

4 104.93 104.8 ................ 104.86 0.09 

5 106.54 106.18 ................ 106.36 0.24 

Microwave-Only, Over-the-Range ................................................... 6 115.69 116.74 ................ 116.22 0.64 

7 113.91 114.53 ................ 114.22 0.38 

9 117.14 117.80 ................ 117.47 0.40 

10 107.44 107.85 107.04 107.44 0.38 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 11 128.77 127.35 ................ 128.06 0.78 

12 131.95 130.17 130.5 130.87 0.72 

13 114.97 115.11 ................ 115.04 0.09 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................... 15 112.54 111.69 ................ 112.12 0.54 

16 120.83 120.18 119.56 120.19 0.53 

17 121.71 120.95 121.2 121.29 0.32 

Average ..................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 114.90 0.44 

Table 6 presents the calculated overall 

weighted average cooking cycle energy 

consumption results for each test unit. 

The following weighting factors 

provided in the draft revised IEC 

Standard 60705 are applied to the 

measured energy use for each test load 

size to calculate the weighted energy 

consumption: 1000 g = 2/11; 350 g = 6/ 

11; 275 g = 3/11. DOE noted that values 

for the overall weighted average cooking 

cycle energy consumption ranged from 

approximately 50.4 Watt-hours (Wh) to 

66.5 Wh (a 32.2 percent difference). 

DOE compared the range of values from 

testing according to the draft revised IEC 

Standard 60705 to the testing conducted 

for the most recent energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for microwave 

ovens. For that testing, DOE conducted 

testing on 32 microwave ovens and 

AHAM conducted tests on 21 separate 

microwave ovens according to the 

previous DOE microwave oven test 

procedure that was based on IEC 

Standard 705, with the results expressed 

in EF (i.e., the ratio of usable output 

power over input power). The DOE test 

units for the most recent energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

testing are different from the test units 

tested for today’s notice listed in Table 

1. The results from this testing, 

presented in Table 7, showed a much 

smaller range in the efficiency metric, 

with EF values ranging from 54.8 

percent to 61.8 percent (12.8 percent 

difference). Based on these results, DOE 

believes that the draft revised IEC 

Standard 60705 may provide the 

opportunity to better differentiate 

products available on the market based 

on efficiency and their associated design 

options for the purposes of energy 

conservation standards rulemakings. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33111 

TABLE 6—DRAFT REVISED IEC STANDARD 60705 OVERALL WEIGHTED ENERGY CONSUMPTION TEST RESULTS

Product type Test unit 

Overall weighted energy use (Wh) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Microwave-Only, Countertop ........................................................... 1 51.99 51.82 51.90 51.90 0.17 

2 53.27 53.37 51.60 52.75 0.98 

3 54.41 53.46 ................ 53.93 1.25 

4 50.60 50.11 ................ 50.35 0.68 

5 50.51 50.79 ................ 50.65 0.39 

Microwave-Only, Over-the-Range ................................................... 6 55.11 55.36 ................ 55.23 0.32 

7 54.04 54.93 ................ 54.48 1.16 

9 57.31 57.38 ................ 57.34 0.09 

10 51.50 51.44 51.79 51.57 0.36 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 11 66.85 66.24 ................ 66.54 0.65 

12 66.72 65.75 66.14 66.20 0.74 

13 58.47 58.54 ................ 58.51 0.08 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................... 15 54.58 54.55 ................ 54.57 0.03 

16 58.15 57.07 58.06 57.76 1.04 

17 59.89 59.03 59.82 59.58 0.80 

Average ..................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 56.11 0.58 

TABLE 7—DOE AND AHAM IEC 

STANDARD 705 TESTING RESULTS

DOE Testing AHAM Testing 

Test unit 1 EF (%) Test 

unit 1 EF (%) 

1 .................. 57.5 33 57.6 

2 .................. 58.0 34 61.1 

3 .................. 55.9 35 58.9 

4 .................. 59.6 36 57.4 

5 .................. 59.5 37 60.7 

6 .................. 58.4 38 61.8 

7 .................. 57.6 39 55.2 

8 .................. 57.3 40 59.1 

9 .................. 60.2 41 57.2 

10 ................ 56.9 42 57.8 

11 ................ 59.4 43 58.7 

12 ................ 59.2 44 61.4 

13 ................ 59.0 45 56.4 

14 ................ 60.8 46 61.4 

15 ................ 58.9 47 57.3 

16 ................ 60.6 48 55.7 

17 ................ 57.2 49 54.8 

18 ................ 59.2 50 55.8 

19 ................ 58.2 51 59.1 

20 ................ 60.4 52 56.8 

21 ................ 61.2 53 58.1 

22 ................ 56.9 .............. ..............

23 ................ 59.4 .............. ..............

24 ................ 58.7 .............. ..............

25 ................ 61.3 .............. ..............

26 ................ 58.0 .............. ..............

27 ................ 61.5 .............. ..............

28 ................ 60.4 .............. ..............

29 ................ 59.7 .............. ..............

30 ................ 57.6 .............. ..............

TABLE 7—DOE AND AHAM IEC 

STANDARD 705 TESTING RESULTS— 

Continued 

DOE Testing AHAM Testing 

Test unit 1 EF (%) Test 

unit 1 EF (%) 

31 ................ 58.5 .............. ..............

32 ................ 58.0 .............. ..............

Minimum Efficiency = 54.8% 

Maximum Efficiency = 61.8% 

1Test units listed in this table are different 

models than the models from DOE’s latest 

testing. 

DOE also noted that CENELEC 

conducted a round-robin testing 

program to evaluate the repeatability 

and reproducibility of the draft revised 

IEC Standard 60705. A total of 5 

manufacturer test labs and 5 

independent test labs in Europe 

conducted testing according to the draft 

revised IEC Standard 60705 on 4 

microwave oven models. In terms of 

repeatability of the measured weighted 

cooking cycle energy consumption, the 

results showed that the test-to-test 

variation expressed as standard error 

within each laboratory was on average 

0.56 percent. The lab-to-lab 

reproducibility of the measured 

weighted cooking cycle energy 

consumption showed a variation of 2.30 

percent on average. CENELEC 

determined these to be acceptable levels 

of repeatability and reproducibility. 

DOE also conducted testing to 

evaluate the testing methodology for 

measuring the low power energy 

consumption of the cooling down 

period. The draft revised IEC Standard 

60705 requires that the cooking cycle 

test be run to achieve a 50 °C 

temperature rise. When the cooking 

cycle has finished, the load is removed 

from the microwave oven and the door 

is closed, at which point the cooling 

down energy consumption is measured 

for a period of 15 minutes. This test is 

conducted for each of the three test load 

sizes, and the weighted cooling down 

energy consumption is calculated using 

the same weighting factors used for the 

cooking cycle weighted energy 

consumption. The weighted cooling 

down energy consumption is then 

added to the weighted cooking cycle 

energy consumption to calculate the 

overall weighted energy consumption. 

For the 1000 g load size, DOE conducted 

two identical repeat tests. For the 275 g 

and 350 g load sizes, DOE conducted 

one test each. The results of this testing 

are presented below in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—DRAFT REVISED IEC STANDARD 60705 COOLING DOWN ENERGY CONSUMPTION TEST RESULTS

Product type Test unit 

Cooling down energy use (Wh) 

1000 g 

Test 1 

1000 g 

Test 2 

350 g 

Test 

275 g 

Test 

Microwave-Only, Countertop ....................................................................................... 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

2 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.78 

3 0.23 ................ 0.23 0.25 

4 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.88 

5 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.39 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33112 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—DRAFT REVISED IEC STANDARD 60705 COOLING DOWN ENERGY CONSUMPTION TEST RESULTS—Continued 

Product type Test unit 

Cooling down energy use (Wh) 

1000 g 

Test 1 

1000 g 

Test 2 

350 g 

Test 

275 g 

Test 

Microwave-Only, Over-the-Range ............................................................................... 6 0.80 ................ 0.81 0.81 

7 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.41 

9 1.09 1.10 1.08 1.09 

10 0.72 0.78 0.77 0.72 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ............................................................................. 11 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.73 

12 0.92 0.89 0.89 1.07 

13 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.31 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ..................................................................... 15 0.99 0.99 0.97 1.00

16 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.07 

17 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.66 

DOE observed minimal variation in 

the measured cooling down energy 

consumption from test to test and also 

between the different load sizes. DOE 

noted that for all of the units in its test 

sample, none contained a fan that 

operated at the end of the microwaveonly cooking cycle to cool the appliance 

down. DOE also noted that when the 

door was closed after the load was 

removed at the end of the cooking cycle, 

the microwave ovens reverted back to 

the standby mode. Table 9 presents the 

average measured power for the cooling 

down mode as compared to the average 

measured standby mode power for each 

test unit. 

TABLE 9—DRAFT REVISED IEC STANDARD 60705 COOLING DOWN MODE POWER

Product type Test unit 

Average cooling down power (W) Average 

standby power 

(W) 1000 g 

Tests 

350 g 

Test 

275 g 

Test 

Microwave-Only, Countertop ............................................................................... 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 

2 3.24 3.15 3.10 3.18 

3 0.90 0.92 1.00 1.06 

4 3.55 3.54 3.54 3.52 

5 1.56 1.59 1.55 1.63 

Microwave-Only, Over-the-Range ....................................................................... 6 3.23 3.25 3.25 3.24 

7 1.64 1.72 1.64 1.71 

9 4.41 4.40 4.38 4.29 

10 3.00 3.11 2.90 3.16 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ..................................................................... 11 2.88 2.91 2.91 2.93 

12 3.66 3.58 4.29 3.54 

13 1.26 1.26 1.27 1.19 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ............................................................. 15 3.98 3.90 3.99 3.98 

16 4.29 4.30 4.29 4.32 

17 2.72 2.69 2.66 2.73 

1Test unit 1 had electromechanical controls and operated in off mode, consuming 0 W. This unit was not capable of operating in standby 

mode. 

The repeatability and reproducibility 

of the cooling down energy 

consumption measurement method 

from the draft revised IEC Standard 

60705 was also evaluated as part of the 

CENELEC round-robin testing program. 

In terms of repeatability of the measured 

weighted cooling down energy 

consumption, the results showed that 

the test-to-test variation expressed as 

standard error within each laboratory 

was on average 0.24 percent. The lab-tolab reproducibility of the measured 

weighted cooling down energy 

consumption showed a variation of 6.14 

percent on average. CENELEC 

determined these to be acceptable levels 

of repeatability and reproducibility. 

DOE may consider incorporating the 

draft revised IEC Standard 60705 test 

method into the DOE microwave oven 

test procedure for measuring the energy 

consumption of the microwave-only 

cooking function. As a result DOE is 

seeking comment on the following 

issues: 

1. DOE seeks comment on the 

suitability of the testing methodologies 

provided in the draft revised IEC 

Standard 60705 for incorporation into 

the DOE microwave oven test 

procedure. In particular, DOE requests 

comment on the repeatability and 

reproducibility of the test results from 

both DOE and CENELEC testing. DOE 

also welcomes comment on whether the 

test procedure should require multiple 

test runs with the results averaged. 

2. DOE requests comment on the 

accuracy requirements for measuring 

equipment specified in the draft revised 

IEC Standard 60705. In particular, DOE 

requests comment on the less stringent 

requirements for the accuracy of the 

temperature measurements as compared 

to IEC Standard 705. 

3. DOE welcomes comment on the 

testing burden associated with testing 

according to the draft revised IEC 

Standard 60705. When providing 

comments, please quantify and describe 

the associated testing burdens. 

4. DOE requests consumer usage data 

on the number of annual active mode 

cooking cycles and annual hours spent 

in active mode for microwave-only 

ovens. 

5. DOE welcomes comment on the 

determination to conduct testing for 

over-the-range microwave ovens with 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33113 

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

Expectancy & Replacement Market, and Saturation 

Levels.’’ Appliance Market Research Report, 

Appliance Magazine, January 2010. 

the airflow exhaust/recirculation fan 

installed in the default air recirculation 

configuration. DOE welcomes comment 

on whether there are any other 

installation conditions for over-therange or built-in microwave ovens that 

it should consider for the DOE 

microwave oven test procedure. 

C. Reheat Food Simulation Mixture 

Testing 

DOE notes that water may not be 

representative of actual food loads 

cooked by consumers in microwave 

ovens. As a result, DOE conducted 

testing on 7 microwave ovens using the 

microwave-only cooking function to 

evaluate mixtures that would simulate 

food load that may be reheated in a 

microwave. The mixtures were 

composed of water and basic food 

ingredients (i.e., fats, sugars, salt, fiber, 

proteins, etc.) with a total combined 

mass of 350 g. DOE selected the 350 g 

load size (using the 900 ml borosilicate 

glass container) based on the draft 

revised IEC Standard 60705 weighting 

factors for the load size with the highest 

frequency of use. DOE also conducted 

testing on an actual food load, chicken 

noodle soup, to serve as a comparison 

to the food simulations. The mixtures 

and food load were tested using the 

same basic testing methodology as the 

draft revised IEC Standard 60705 (i.e., 

microwave-only cooking function, 

temperature rise from 10 °C to 60 °C). 

The measured cooking cycle energy 

consumption was then used to calculate 

the energy consumption required to heat 

one gram of the mixture by one degree 

Celsius, an effective heat capacity. For 

each test unit, three identical tests were 

conducted for each mixture to evaluate 

the repeatability of such a testing 

procedure. 

The results from this testing, 

presented in Table 10 and Table 11, 

show a higher range and average test-totest variation, expressed as a standard 

error, compared to the water-only load 

and compared to the results using the 

draft revised IEC Standard 60705 test 

method presented in 0.0. DOE also 

noted that the same brands were used 

for each ingredient in the mixtures. 

Therefore, additional variation in test 

results may be observed from lab to lab 

due to the use of different brands of the 

ingredients. 

TABLE 10—FOOD SIMULATION MIXTURE TEST RESULTS—PART 1 

Test unit 

Water Water + fat Water + glucose Water + fat + glucose 

Average 

heat 

capacity 

(J/g·°C) 

Test-to-test 

variation 

(%) 

Average 

heat 

capacity 

(J/g·°C) 

Test-to-test 

variation 

(%) 

Average 

heat 

capacity 

(J/g·°C) 

Test-to-test 

variation 

(%) 

Average 

heat 

capacity 

(J/g·°C) 

Test-to-test 

variation 

(%) 

1 ....................................... 8.570 0.39 8.284 3.57 7.514 1.50 7.672 1.54 

2 ....................................... 8.635 0.99 8.759 7.20 7.259 1.85 7.416 5.95 

8 ....................................... * * 8.952 1.67 8.332 1.06 8.241 4.04 

9 ....................................... 8.363 0.64 8.561 2.39 7.559 2.61 7.293 2.16 

11 ..................................... 11.419 1.42 10.941 0.87 10.203 1.65 9.704 3.00 

15 ..................................... 9.356 0.68 8.922 0.11 8.152 0.49 8.028 2.55 

16 ..................................... 9.833 0.27 9.774 0.41 8.769 1.55 8.790 2.35 

Average ..................... 9.363 0.73 9.170 2.32 8.255 1.53 8.163 3.08 

* Not tested. 

TABLE 11—FOOD SIMULATION MIXTURE TEST RESULTS—PART 2 

Test unit 

Pizza simulation Chicken noodle soup 

simulation 

Chicken noodle soup 

Average 

heat 

capacity 

(J/g·°C) 

Test-to-test 

variation 

(%) 

Average 

heat 

capacity 

(J/g·°C) 

Test-to-test 

variation 

(%) 

Average 

heat 

capacity 

(J/g·°C) 

Test-to-test 

variation 

(%) 

1 ....................................................................................... 6.975 2.42 8.618 1.09 8.941 2.01 

2 ....................................................................................... 6.486 1.24 8.811 3.77 9.210 1.26 

8 ....................................................................................... 7.715 1.93 8.952 0.69 9.754 2.67 

9 ....................................................................................... 6.453 0.61 8.406 0.73 8.995 3.29 

11 ..................................................................................... 9.036 0.90 11.108 0.81 11.662 1.39 

15 ..................................................................................... 7.164 1.28 8.909 0.56 9.236 1.04 

16 ..................................................................................... 7.715 1.15 9.624 0.88 10.012 1.43 

Average ..................................................................... 7.363 1.36 9.204 1.22 9.687 1.87 

6. DOE welcomes comment on 

suitability of using food simulation 

mixtures for the microwave oven test 

procedure for microwave-only cooking. 

In particular, DOE requests comment on 

the repeatability and reproducibility of 

the food simulation mixture tests results 

presented in Table 10 and Table 11. 

D. Convection Microwave Cooking 

Testing 

As discussed above in section 0, 

according to Whirlpool, convection 

microwave ovens (i.e., microwave ovens 

that incorporate convection features and 

any other means of cooking in a single 

compartment) represent less than 4 

percent of U.S. shipments. Based on 

shipments data from Appliance 

Magazine showing 11.340 million 

microwave oven shipments in 2008,3

convection microwave ovens represent 

approximately 450,000 annual 

shipments. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33114 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DOE’s review of product literature 

indicated that convection microwave 

ovens can be operated using the 

microwave-only cooking function, 

convection-only cooking function, and 

convection microwave cooking 

function. DOE also noted based on a 

review of the cooking manuals and 

recipe books supplied with convection 

microwave ovens that a significant 

portion of the recipes included cooking 

procedures that used the convection 

microwave cooking function. As a 

result, DOE first investigated whether 

testing procedures could be developed 

to evaluate the convection microwave 

cooking function of convection 

microwave ovens. As discussed in 

section 0, AHAM and Whirlpool both 

noted a number of concerns with the 

repeatability and reproducibility of test 

results using actual food loads. DOE 

therefore decided to conduct limited 

testing to evaluate the repeatability of 

real food loads when heated using the 

convection microwave cooking 

function. DOE tested three different 

food loads: shortening, potatoes, and 

chicken. For each food load, the same 

brand of products was used for all tests 

to specifically evaluate repeatability of 

test results. DOE then conducted testing 

to assess food simulation cooking loads 

to determine whether such loads are 

representative of actual food loads and 

improve the repeatability of test results. 

As part of this testing DOE noted that 

for the majority of microwave ovens in 

its test sample, the default program 

setting for convection microwave 

cooking allowed the user to set the 

overall cooking time and cycled 

between microwave-only cooking and 

convection-only cooking, where 

microwave-only cooking accounted for 

30 percent of the cooking time and 

convection-only cooking accounted for 

the remaining 70 percent of total 

cooking time. DOE used this default 

convection microwave cooking program 

setting that used 30 percent microwaveonly cooking and 70 percent 

convection-only cooking for testing. 

DOE also noted that for the majority of 

the convection microwave ovens in its 

test sample, the user is required to 

program the temperature setting for the 

convection portion of the convection 

microwave cooking cycle. Based on a 

review of the cooking manuals and 

recipe books supplied with convection 

microwave ovens, DOE noted that a 

majority of the recipes that used 

convection microwave cooking 

specified convection temperature 

settings between 300 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F) and 375 °F. DOE also noted that its 

current test procedure for conventional 

ovens found in 10 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, 

appendix I specifies a convection 

temperature setting 325 ± 5 °F higher 

than the room ambient air temperature, 

which would result in a temperature 

setting close to 400 °F. However, based 

on DOE’s survey of convection 

microwave ovens available on the 

market, not all products are equipped 

with a 400 °F temperature setting, but 

all convection microwave ovens DOE 

surveyed had a 375 °F setting. As a 

result, DOE selected a convection 

temperature setting of 375 °F for the 

convection microwave cooking function 

for its testing of convection microwave 

ovens. 

For convection microwave cooking 

testing, DOE noted that the temperatures 

of the test loads had to be measured 

before and after the cooking cycle, as is 

done for IEC Standard 60705, due to 

safety concerns with arcing inside the 

microwave oven cavity from the metal 

thermocouples and the microwave 

energy. The following sections discuss 

these testing investigations to evaluate 

the convection microwave cooking 

function. 

Food Load Testing 

For shortening, DOE conducted 

limited testing on two convection 

microwave oven models. For each test, 

DOE prepared a 350 g load of shortening 

in the 900 ml borosilicate glass 

container with a starting load 

temperature of 10 ± 1 °C. DOE used 

three thermocouples to measure the 

average temperature of the load, with 

one thermocouple placed in the center 

of the load, and the other two placed 

approximately one inch from the edge of 

the container on either side. All of the 

thermocouples were placed at an equal 

distance from the top and bottom of the 

load. The shortening load was then 

heated using the default convection 

microwave cooking function to achieve 

a target average final temperature of 60 

± 5 °C. As for the reheat food simulation 

mixture testing, the measured cooking 

cycle energy consumption was then 

used to calculate the effective heat 

capacity. For each test unit, DOE 

conducted three identical tests to 

evaluate repeatability. DOE also 

conducted an additional set of testing 

with target average final temperatures of 

70 ± 5 °C for one test unit and 80 ± 5 

°C for the other test unit. DOE was 

unable to establish a target final average 

temperature range tighter than ± 5 °C 

due to the test-to-test variation in the 

final average temperature of the test 

load even when using the same cooking 

time. DOE noted that using tighter 

ranges such as ± 2 °C or ± 1 °C for this 

food load would require a significant 

number of retests to achieve the 

specified final average temperatures. 

The test results for the shortening 

tests are presented below in Table 12. 

For the tests using an average final 

temperature of 60 ± 5 °C, the test-to-test 

variation ranged from 5.18 percent to 

7.42 percent. DOE observed that the 

shortening, which was all solid at the 

starting temperature of 10 ± 1 °C, was 

only partly liquefied at the final 

temperature of approximately 60 °C, 

with the middle still being partly solid, 

and the outer portion being liquid. 

Unlike the tests using an average final 

temperature of 60 °C, DOE observed that 

the shortening was all liquid at the end 

of the cooking cycle for the 70 °C and 

80 °C average final temperature tests. 

However, the test results for these tests 

continued to show significant test-totest variation. 

For all shortening tests, DOE noted 

that when it measured the final 

temperature of the load after the 

completion of the cooking cycle, the 

temperature continued to rise for 30–90 

seconds before finally leveling off. DOE 

believes that this may be attributable to 

continued heat transfer from the hotter 

outer edges of the test container and/or 

food load after the completion of the 

cycle. DOE waited until the temperature 

leveled off and used that measurement 

for the calculation of the effective heat 

capacity. DOE recognizes that this may 

contribute to additional test-to-test 

variation depending on the time needed 

for the temperature of the load to 

stabilize for each test. DOE also noted 

that it had to conduct a number of 

additional retests in cases where the 

final temperature was not within the 

specified range. DOE recognizes that 

specifying a tighter final temperature 

range than ± 5 °C may represent a 

testing burden due to the difficulties of 

achieving a consistent final load 

temperature from test to test. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33115 

TABLE 12—FOOD LOAD TEST RESULTS: SHORTENING

Product type Test unit 

Target final 

avg. temp 

range of 

load 

(°C) 

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 

Test-to-test 

variation 

(%) 

Avg. heat 

capacity 

(J/g ·°C) 

Avg. final 

temp 

(°C) 

Avg. heat 

capacity 

(J/g ·°C) 

Avg. final 

temp 

(°C) 

Avg. heat 

capacity 

(J/g ·°C) 

Avg. final 

temp 

(°C) 

Combination, 

Countertop .............. 14 60 ± 5 

80 ± 5 

44.290 

33.115 

57.3 

83.7 

39.977 

35.924 

58.3 

79.1 

42.843 

31.932 

56.1 

75.9 

5.18 

6.09 

Combination, Overthe-Range ............... 17 60 ± 5 

70 ± 5 

30.413 

25.688 

60.1 

69.1 

26.471 

25.081 

56.8 

68.0 

27.282 

26.199 

64.6 

67.5 

7.42 

2.18 

DOE next conducted testing to 

evaluate the repeatability of Russet 

Burbank potatoes as a test food load 

using the convection microwave 

cooking function. DOE selected potatoes 

as a test load based on a review of 

commonly found foods contained in the 

cooking manuals and recipe books 

supplied with convection microwave 

ovens. Based on discussions with a food 

scientist specializing in potato 

production and storage management as 

well as potato seed quality and 

performance, DOE specifically selected 

Russet Burbank potatoes based on their 

consistent water content. In addition, 

Russet potatoes were identified to be the 

most likely to be available year round 

and are grown with standardized 

approaches. For each test DOE selected 

3 potatoes with similar weights, with no 

greater than an 80 g difference between 

the largest and smallest potato for a 

batch of 3 potatoes. The potatoes were 

then placed in an equidistant triangle 

pattern directly on the turntable dish at 

approximately 7 centimeters from the 

center of the dish. DOE noted that it was 

unable to keep a tight tolerance on the 

total combined mass due to the 

variability in size and shape of the 

potatoes. The temperature of each 

potato was measured using single 

thermocouples placed approximately at 

the center of each potato. The potato 

loads were heated from 10 ± 1 °C to 

about 60 ± 5 °C using the convection 

microwave cooking function. DOE 

selected the target final temperature of 

60 °C based on a review of the cooking 

instructions for potatoes found in the 

cooking manuals and recipe books. As 

was done for the shortening tests, the 

measured cooking cycle energy 

consumption was then used to calculate 

the effective heat capacity. For each test 

unit, DOE conducted three identical 

tests to evaluate repeatability. DOE 

noted that Russet Burbank potatoes are 

grown in multiple geographical regions 

in North America, the majority of which 

are grown in Idaho and Canada. DOE 

decided to conduct testing to determine 

whether Russet Burbank potatoes grown 

in certain regions produce more 

repeatable test results. As a result, DOE 

tested batches of potatoes from the two 

areas where the majority of Russet 

Burbank potatoes are grown, Idaho and 

Canada. 

The Russet Burbank potato testing 

results are presented below in Table 13 

and Table 14. The results showed testto-test variation for the calculated 

effective heat capacity ranging from 2.89 

percent to 8.50 percent for both types of 

Russet Burbank potatoes. DOE noted 

that, in addition to the varying masses 

of each of the three test potatoes, the 

varying shape of each potato may also 

affect the time required to heat the 

center of each potato to the target final 

temperature. DOE also noted that it was 

difficult to achieve a consistent final 

average temperature from test to test due 

to the different masses and shapes of the 

potatoes. DOE observed, similar to the 

tests for shortening, that when it 

measured the final temperature of the 

load after the completion of the cooking 

cycle, the temperature continued to rise 

for 80–160 seconds in some cases before 

finally leveling off. DOE waited until 

the temperature leveled off and used 

that measurement for the calculation of 

the effective heat capacity. DOE 

recognizes that this may contribute to 

additional test-to-test variation 

depending on the time needed for the 

temperature of the load to stabilize for 

each test. As with the shortening tests, 

DOE noted that it had to conduct a 

number of additional retests in cases in 

which the final temperature was not 

within the specified range. DOE 

similarly recognizes that specifying a 

tighter final temperature range than ± 5 

°C for potatoes may represent a testing 

burden due to the difficulties of 

achieving a consistent final load 

temperature from test to test. 

DOE recognizes that in addition to 

issues with test-to-test repeatability, the 

lab-to-lab reproducibility will also be 

difficult to maintain if the potatoes are 

grown under different conditions, 

including climate and growing 

conditions (i.e., soil conditions, 

watering frequency, harvesting time, 

etc.) that may vary throughout the 

growing seasons even within specific 

geographical regions. 

TABLE 13—FOOD LOAD TEST RESULTS: IDAHO RUSSET POTATO

Product type Test unit 

Average heat capacity (J/g ·°C) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 12 

14 

29.541 

33.972 

32.359 

39.277 

31.366 

39.732 

31.089 

37.660 

4.60 

8.50 

Average ..................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 34.375 6.55 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33116 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4For more information, visit http:// 

www.which.co.uk/home-and-garden/kitchen/ 

guides/how-we-test-microwaves/. 

TABLE 14—FOOD LOAD TEST RESULTS: CANADIAN RUSSET POTATO

Product type Test unit 

Average heat capacity (J/g ·°C) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 13 20.230 22.081 19.741 20.684 5.97 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................... 17 

18 

29.145 

29.155 

29.722 

27.766 

30.845 

27.300 

29.904 

28.074 

2.89 

3.44 

Average ..................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 26.220 4.10 

DOE also conducted testing with 

USDA grade A boneless chicken breasts 

using the same basic procedure 

described for the testing with potatoes, 

but with the different starting and final 

test load temperatures. DOE noted that 

chicken is generally stored frozen, and 

then allowed to thaw before cooking. To 

determine an appropriate starting 

temperature, DOE used the programmed 

defrost cycle settings for chicken on a 

microwave oven in its test sample and 

measured the temperature of the 

chicken breasts after the defrost cycle. 

The temperature of the thawed chicken 

after the defrost cycle ranged between 2 

to 5 °C. However, at 2 °C, DOE noted 

that the chicken breast still had some 

localized frozen sections not found at 

5 °C. Therefore, DOE used a starting 

temperature of 5 ± 1 °C. A target final 

temperature of 90 ± 5 °C was used based 

on review of cooking instructions for 

chicken found in cooking manuals and 

recipe books supplied with convection 

microwave ovens. For this testing, DOE 

selected 3 chicken breasts for each test 

with similar weights with no greater 

than a 170 g difference between the 

largest and smallest chicken breast. For 

each test unit, DOE conducted up to 

four identical tests to evaluate 

repeatability. 

The results from testing, presented 

below in Table 15, showed test-to-test 

variation for the calculated effective 

heat capacity ranging from 1.09 percent 

to 12.57 percent, with an average of 7.20 

percent. DOE noted that this variability 

may be due to the varying masses and 

shapes of each chicken breast. DOE also 

observed, similar to the tests for 

shortening and potatoes, that when it 

measured the final temperature of the 

load after the completion of the cooking 

cycle, the temperature continued to rise 

for 60–150 seconds in some cases before 

finally leveling off. DOE waited until 

the temperature leveled off and used 

that measurement for the calculation of 

the effective heat capacity. DOE 

recognizes that this may contribute to 

additional test-to-test variation 

depending on the time needed for the 

temperature of the load to stabilize for 

each test. As with the other food load 

tests, DOE noted that it had to conduct 

a number of additional retests in cases 

in which the final temperature was not 

within the specified range. DOE 

similarly recognizes that specifying a 

tighter final temperature range than 

± 5 °C for chicken may represent a 

testing burden due to the difficulties of 

achieving a consistent final load 

temperature from test to test. 

DOE recognizes that the following 

factors may contribute to variation from 

chicken to chicken, and thus test to test, 

as well as contribute to variation in 

reproducibility for chicken breasts from 

different suppliers: 

• Individual chicken’s diet; 

• Individual chicken’s physical 

activity; 

• Genetics; and 

• Methods of breeding and raising 

chickens from farm to farm 

TABLE 15—FOOD LOAD TEST RESULTS: USDA GRADE A BONELESS CHICKEN BREAST

Product type Test unit 

Range of 

total 

masses 

(g) 

Average heat capacity (J/g ·°C) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Average 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ......... 12 

14 

700–781 

687–804 

37.449 

34.674 

37.533 

32.619 

36.867 

35.469 

(1) 37.283 

34.254 

0.97 

4.29 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range 17 708–794 32.751 44.727 39.019 39.373 38.967 12.57 

Average ............................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 36.835 5.95 

1For test units 12 and 14, DOE conducted only 3 repeat tests. 

7. DOE requests comment on the 

suitability of real food loads for 

incorporation into the DOE microwave 

oven test procedure for testing 

convection microwave ovens. DOE also 

welcomes comments specifically on the 

test methodologies (i.e., load 

temperature measurement methods, 

starting and final temperatures, mass of 

test load) described in this section and 

the repeatability of test results using 

shortening, Russet Burbank potatoes, 

and USDA grade A boneless chicken 

breasts as well as the reproducibility of 

such food loads. 

Food Load Simulation Testing 

As part of the convection microwave 

cooking testing, DOE also evaluated 

loads that would simulate actual foods. 

As discussed in the October 2011 RFI, 

DOE noted that one consumer product 

review organization in the UK uses the 

solidifying powder TX–151, which 

when combined with water creates a 

gel, to simulate a food load (in their case 

lasagna).4 DOE decided to conduct 

testing using the TX–151 solidifying 

powder to evaluate the repeatability of 

test results using the convection 

microwave cooking function. DOE 

prepared three different watersolidifying powder mixtures using ratios 

recommended by the manufacturer of 

TX–151 to create medium, mediumhard, and hard firmness gels, using 

ratios of powder to water of 1:10, 1:7, 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33117 

and 1:5, respectively. DOE noted that 

when mixing each powder-to-water 

ratio, the temperature of the water and 

mixing speed/time directly influenced 

the mixture’s homogeneity. As a result, 

DOE determined, based on 

experimentation, the water temperatures 

and mixing speeds/times for each 

powder-to-water ratio that produced the 

most homogenous mixtures. DOE also 

covered the mixtures and allowed them 

to set for two different lengths of time 

(2 hours and 6 hours) and at two 

different temperatures (20–25 °C and 

7–10 °C) to evaluate whether setting 

time and temperature affected the 

consistency of the gel. DOE observed 

that the allowing the gels to set for 6 

hours did not noticeably change the 

hardness or consistency as compared to 

the gels that were allowed to set for 2 

hours. In addition, DOE observed in 

most cases a 0.1 g to 0.3 g loss in water 

prior to the cooking cycle for both the 

2 hour and 6 hour setting times due to 

evaporation, and that the water loss was 

not noticeably higher for the 6 hour 

setting time. DOE noted that this was 

likely because the mixtures were 

covered while being allowed to set. 

Based on these observations, DOE 

selected the 2 hour setting time for 

testing. In addition, DOE noted that the 

two different setting temperatures did 

not result in a noticeably different 

hardness or consistency after a given 

setting time. As a result, DOE selected 

the 7–10 °C setting temperature so that 

the temperature of the test load at the 

start of the test cycle would be more 

representative of food load temperatures 

at the start of cooking. 

DOE tested each convection 

microwave oven in its test sample using 

each of the three power-to-water ratio 

gels (i.e., 1:10, 1:7, and 1:5) prepared as 

described above. For each test, DOE 

prepared 350 g of the gel mixtures in the 

900 ml borosilicate glass containers. 

Similar to the method discussed above 

for shortening, DOE used three 

thermocouples to measure the 

temperature of the load, with one 

thermocouple placed in the center of the 

load, and the other two placed 

approximately one inch from the edge of 

the container on either side, and each 

thermocouple placed at an equal 

distance from the top and bottom of the 

load. The test loads were heated from 

10 ± 1 °C until the center temperature 

was 60 ± 5 °C using the convection 

microwave cooking function. DOE chose 

to use a target final temperature for the 

center thermocouple probe because it 

noted that the temperatures of two outer 

thermocouple probes were much more 

variable and difficult to repeat. In 

addition, the temperature at the center 

of the food load is generally used to 

determine whether food is cooked 

completely. DOE noted that the target 

final temperature of 60 ± 5 °C resulted 

in an overall average final temperature 

of approximately 70 ± 5 °C for all three 

thermocouple probes in most cases. 

The results from this testing are 

presented below in Table 16 through 

Table 18. For the 1:10 powder-to-water 

ratio gel, the test-to-test variation ranged 

from 1.89 percent to 5.89 percent, with 

an average of 4.02 percent. For the 1:7 

and 1:5 powder-to-water ratio gel tests 

the range in test-to-test variation was 

greater than the 1:10 powder-to-water 

ratio gel tests. DOE noted that this may 

be due to the 1:10 powder-to-water ratio 

gel being the most homogenous mixture. 

DOE also observed that the outer edge 

on the surface of the gel was slightly 

evaporated at the completion of the 

cooking cycle. In particular, the gels 

with a powder-to-water ratio of 1:10 had 

more evaporation on the edges than the 

1:7 and 1:5 ratio gels, which was likely 

due to the larger amount of water 

making up the 1:10 ratio gels. 

DOE also observed, similar to the tests 

for real food loads, that when it 

measured the final temperature of the 

load after the completion of the cooking 

cycle, the temperature continued to rise 

for 30–90 seconds in most cases before 

finally leveling off. DOE waited until 

the temperature leveled off and used 

that measurement for the calculation of 

the effective heat capacity. DOE 

recognizes that this may contribute to 

additional test-to-test variation 

depending on the time needed for the 

temperature of the load to stabilize for 

each test. As with the real food load 

tests, DOE also noted that it had to 

conduct a number of additional retests 

in cases in which the final temperature 

was not within the specified range. DOE 

similarly recognizes that specifying a 

tighter final temperature range than ± 5 

°C for the TX–151 gels may represent a 

testing burden due to the difficulties of 

achieving a consistent final load 

temperature from test to test. 

TABLE 16—TX–151 1:10 RATIO GEL TESTS

Product type Test unit 

Average heat capacity (J/g ·°C) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 11 33.828 32.448 36.422 34.233 5.89 

12 43.748 40.932 39.665 41.448 5.04 

13 27.655 29.565 28.127 28.449 3.50 

14 54.402 51.997 53.212 53.203 2.26 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................... 15 31.301 32.376 29.910 31.196 3.96 

17 34.785 33.503 34.035 34.108 1.89 

18 49.865 45.797 44.999 46.887 5.57 

Average ............................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 38.503 4.02 

TABLE 17—TX–151 1:7 RATIO GEL TESTS

Product type Test unit 

Average heat capacity (J/g ·°C) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 11 34.378 34.588 32.836 33.934 2.82 

12 44.150 43.724 42.968 43.614 1.37 

13 28.102 28.068 28.381 28.183 0.61 

14 48.668 57.097 56.416 54.060 8.66 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................... 15 34.109 27.204 33.126 31.480 11.87 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33118 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 17—TX–151 1:7 RATIO GEL TESTS—Continued 

Product type Test unit 

Average heat capacity (J/g ·°C) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

17 34.850 34.699 34.307 34.618 0.81 

18 44.813 43.801 44.559 44.391 1.19 

Average ............................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 38.612 3.90 

TABLE 18—TX–151 1:5 RATIO GEL TESTS

Product type Test unit 

Average heat capacity (J/g ·°C) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 11 32.798 34.219 31.778 32.932 3.72 

12 45.869 45.375 44.995 45.413 0.97 

13 30.061 28.882 28.484 29.142 2.81 

14 55.433 59.854 48.900 54.729 10.07 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................... 15 27.940 33.899 32.653 31.497 9.98 

17 35.116 36.735 36.633 36.162 2.51 

18 54.040 46.450 47.023 49.171 8.60 

Average ............................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 39.864 5.52 

DOE may consider amendments to the 

microwave oven test procedure for 

measuring the convection microwave 

cooking function for convection 

microwave ovens. If DOE determines 

such test procedure amendments are 

warranted, it may consider developing 

an integrated metric that incorporates 

the convection microwave cooking 

function energy use along with other 

active mode and standby mode energy 

use. As a result, DOE would require 

consumer usage data on the number of 

annual convection microwave cooking 

cycles and annual hours spent in 

convection microwave cooking mode for 

convection microwave ovens. However, 

DOE is currently unaware of any such 

data. DOE is seeking comment on the 

following issues related to convection 

microwave cooking. 

8. DOE requests comment on the 

suitability of the various powder-towater ratio gels and testing methods 

(i.e., load temperature measurement 

methods, starting and final 

temperatures, and mass of test load) 

described in this section for 

incorporation into the DOE microwave 

oven test procedure for testing 

convection microwave ovens. DOE also 

welcomes comments specifically on the 

repeatability of test results presented in 

this section as well as comments on the 

reproducibility of test measurements. In 

addition, DOE requests comment on the 

testing burden associated with these 

testing methods. When providing 

comments, please quantify and describe 

the associated testing burdens. 

9. DOE requests comment on whether 

there are any other food load 

simulations and testing methods that it 

should consider for measuring the 

energy use of convection microwave 

ovens. In particular, DOE requests data 

and information on the repeatability of 

such loads and testing methods. 

10. DOE requests consumer usage data 

on the number of annual active mode 

cycles and annual hours spent in 

microwave-only cooking mode and 

convection microwave cooking mode for 

convection microwave ovens. 

E. Convection Microwave Oven 

Convection-Only Cooking Testing 

As discussed above, DOE noted that 

convection microwave ovens can also be 

operated using the convection-only 

cooking function. DOE investigated 

whether a testing procedure could be 

developed to evaluate the convectiononly cooking function of a convection 

microwave oven. DOE developed a 

testing method based on the DOE 

conventional cooking products test 

procedure for conventional ovens at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I, to 

measure the energy consumption of the 

convection cooking function for 

convection microwave ovens. The DOE 

conventional oven test procedure 

involves setting the convection cooking 

cycle such that the temperature inside 

the oven is 325 ± 5 °F higher than the 

room ambient air temperature. An 8.5 ± 

0.1 pound cylindrical aluminum test 

block is then heated from ambient room 

air temperature ± 4 °F until the test 

block temperature has increased 234 °F 

above its initial temperature. The 

temperature of the aluminum test block 

is measured using a single 

thermocouple placed at the center of the 

block in a 0.08 inch diameter hole 0.8 

inches from the top of the block. 

Because this test uses only convection 

heating and is not subject to safety 

concerns with arcing from microwave 

energy, thermocouples can be used to 

measure the test load temperature inside 

the microwave oven cavity during the 

test cycle. The measured energy 

consumption is used to calculate the 

cooking efficiency and energy factor. 

As discussed above, DOE noted that 

the convection temperature setting 

requirement of 325 ± 5 °F higher than 

the room ambient air temperature would 

result in a temperature setting close to 

400 °F. Based on DOE’s review of 

products currently available on the U.S. 

market, a number of convection 

microwave ovens did not have a 400 °F 

temperature setting, but all convection 

microwave ovens that DOE surveyed 

had a 375 °F temperature setting. As a 

result, DOE modified the test method to 

conduct this testing using a temperature 

control setting of 375 °F to heat the 

aluminum test block to 234 °F above its 

initial temperature. In addition, DOE 

also specified that the aluminum test 

block be placed on the metal cooking 

rack provided by the manufacturer. For 

each convection microwave oven, DOE 

conducted three identical tests to 

evaluate repeatability of results. The 

results from testing, presented in Table 

19, showed test-to-test variation ranging 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33119 

from 0.68 percent to 2.11 percent, with 

an average of 1.30 percent. 

TABLE 19—CONVECTION-ONLY COOKING TEST RESULTS

Product type Test unit 

Cooking efficiency (%) Test-to-test 

variation— 

standard error 

(%) Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ................................................. 11 7.37 7.24 7.07 7.23 2.11 

12 12.48 12.53 12.25 12.42 1.19 

13 8.29 8.49 8.32 8.37 1.28 

14 10.12 10.06 10.31 10.16 1.32 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range ......................................... 15 6.62 6.49 6.43 6.51 1.51 

17 11.19 11.05 11.08 11.11 0.68 

18 7.60 7.66 7.51 7.59 1.00 

Average ............................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 9.06 1.30 

If DOE determines that actual and 

simulation food loads do not produce 

repeatable results using the convection 

microwave cooking function, DOE may 

consider developing a test procedure 

using a single metric that accounts for 

the energy use of the different cooking 

functions (i.e., microwave-only, 

convection-only, and convection 

microwave cooking) using the 

microwave-only cooking test method 

and the convection-only cooking test 

method. As discussed above, DOE noted 

that the convection microwave cooking 

cycle for microwave ovens in DOE’s test 

sample consisted of cycling between 

microwave-only cooking for 30 percent 

of the time and convection-only cooking 

for the remaining 70 percent of the time. 

DOE may use this mix of microwave 

and convection cooking to apportion the 

energy use measured using the 

individual test procedures for 

microwave-only and convection-only 

cooking to calculate the per-cycle 

energy use for a convection microwave 

cooking cycle. However, DOE is not 

aware of consumer usage data regarding 

representative cooking cycle lengths, 

number of annual cooking cycles, or 

annual usage hours for each of the 

cooking functions for convection 

microwave ovens. 

11. DOE requests comment on the 

suitability of incorporating the 

convection-only cooking method 

presented above into the DOE test 

procedure for convection microwave 

ovens. DOE also requests comment on 

the potential approach of using the 

microwave-only and convection-only 

cooking tests to calculate the energy use 

for the convection microwave cooking 

function. DOE seeks comment on the 

repeatability of the convection 

microwave oven convection-only 

cooking function test results presented 

in this section. DOE welcomes 

additional data and inputs on the 

repeatability and reproducibility of this 

convection-only cooking test method. 

12. DOE requests comment on the 

testing burden associated with these 

testing methods. When providing 

comments, please quantify and describe 

the associated testing burdens. 

13. DOE seeks comment on the 

temperature setting of 375 °F and target 

final temperature of 234 °F above the 

initial test block temperature and 

whether such settings would be 

appropriate for the DOE test procedure 

for convection microwave ovens. 

14. DOE seeks consumer usage data 

on the representative cooking cycle 

lengths, number of annual cooking 

cycles, and annual usage hours for each 

of the cooking functions for convection 

microwave ovens (i.e., microwave-only, 

convection-only, and convection 

microwave cooking). DOE also 

welcomes comment on whether a split 

of 30 percent microwave and 70 percent 

convection would be appropriate for 

apportioning energy use for the 

convection microwave cooking 

function. 

F. Cooling Down Energy Use 

As discussed above in section 0.0, 

DOE noted that for all of the units in its 

test sample, none contained a fan that 

operated at the end of the microwaveonly cooking cycle to cool the appliance 

down. However, DOE noted that a 

number of the convection microwave 

ovens in its sample had a fan that 

operated after the completion of the 

convection microwave cooking cycle 

and convection-only cooking cycle in 

order to cool the microwave oven. DOE 

observed during testing that the cooling 

down power ranged from approximately 

19 watts (W) to 63 W. Table 20 shows 

the measured cooling down energy 

consumption and amount of time the 

cooling fan ran after the completion of 

the convection-only cooking cycle for 

the convection microwave ovens in 

DOE’s test sample that operated a 

cooling fan after the cooking cycle. 

These measurements showed that the 

convection microwave ovens in DOE’s 

test sample that operated a cooling fan 

after the completion of the cooking 

cycle consumed between 1.0 Wh and 

7.2 Wh. DOE also noted that the amount 

of time that the cooling fan operated 

varied from product to product, and also 

from test to test. 

TABLE 20—CONVECTION-ONLY COOLING DOWN ENERGY USE

Product type Test unit 

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 

Cool down 

energy use 

(Wh) 

Cool down 

duration 

(min) 

Cool down 

energy use 

(Wh) 

Cool down 

duration 

(min) 

Cool down 

energy use 

(Wh) 

Cool down 

duration 

(min) 

Convection Microwave, Countertop ......... 11 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

12 1.2 3.22 1.1 2.95 1.0 2.80 

13 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

14 1.2 3.68 1.3 3.83 1.1 3.48 

Convection Microwave, Over-the-Range 15 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33120 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 20—CONVECTION-ONLY COOLING DOWN ENERGY USE—Continued 

Product type Test unit 

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 

Cool down 

energy use 

(Wh) 

Cool down 

duration 

(min) 

Cool down 

energy use 

(Wh) 

Cool down 

duration 

(min) 

Cool down 

energy use 

(Wh) 

Cool down 

duration 

(min) 

17 6.7 6.52 6.6 6.28 7.2 6.90 

18 2.5 3.13 2.6 3.25 2.6 3.27 

Note: Test units for which no values are listed indicate that no cooling fan ran after the completion of the combination or convection-only cooking cycles. 

DOE may consider test procedure 

amendments to include the cooling fan 

energy consumption as part of the 

energy efficiency metric for convection 

microwave ovens. If DOE determines 

that such amendments are appropriate, 

it may also consider adjustments to the 

annual standby mode hours to account 

for the additional time that the product 

operates the cooling fan at the end of the 

cooking cycle. The total annual cooling 

fan hours would be calculated by 

multiplying the amount of time that the 

cooling fan operates per cycle by the 

number of total annual convection 

microwave cooking and convection-only 

cooking cycles. These hours would then 

be subtracted from the total number of 

standby mode hours. However, DOE is 

unaware of consumer usage data 

regarding the total annual convection 

microwave and convection-only cooking 

cycles for convection microwave ovens. 

15. DOE welcomes comment on 

whether the cooling fan energy 

consumption should be included in the 

efficiency metric for convection 

microwave ovens. 

G. Additional Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment 

DOE may consider amendments to the 

microwave oven test procedure for both 

microwave-only and convection 

microwave ovens based on the testing 

discussed in the sections above. In 

addition to the specific issues for each 

testing method on which DOE is seeking 

comment, DOE is seeking comment on 

the following: 

16. DOE welcomes general comments 

about the potential testing 

methodologies to measure microwave 

oven active mode energy use presented 

in this notice. DOE also welcomes 

comment on any alternative testing 

methodologies appropriate for inclusion 

in the DOE microwave oven test 

procedure. DOE requests data on the 

repeatability and reproducibility of such 

testing methods. DOE also welcomes 

additional data on the repeatability and 

reproducibility of testing results using 

the test methods presented in this 

notice. 

The purpose of this NODA is to solicit 

feedback from industry, manufacturers, 

academia, consumer groups, efficiency 

advocates, government agencies, and 

other stakeholders on issues related to 

the DOE microwave oven test 

procedure. DOE is specifically 

interested in information and additional 

data on the potential amendments to the 

microwave oven test procedure for 

measuring active mode energy use 

presented in today’s notice. 

Respondents are advised that DOE is 

under no obligation to acknowledge 

receipt of the information received or 

provide feedback to respondents with 

respect to any information submitted 

under this NODA. Responses to this 

NODA do not bind DOE to any further 

actions related to this topic. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13609 Filed 6–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1026 

[Docket No. CFPB–2012–0022] 

RIN 3170–AA17 

Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Notice of reopening of comment 

period and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is 

reopening the comment period for the 

proposed rule published by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System (Board) in the Federal Register 

on May 11, 2011 (76 FR 27390). On May 

11, 2011, the Board published for notice 

and comment a proposed rule amending 

Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to 

implement amendments to the Truth in 

Lending Act (TILA) made by the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The 

proposed rule addressed new ability-torepay requirements that generally will 

apply to consumer credit transactions 

secured by a dwelling and the definition 

of a ‘‘qualified mortgage.’’ Among other 

consumer financial protection laws, the 

Dodd-Frank Act transferred the Board’s 

rulemaking authority for TILA to the 

Bureau as of July 21, 2011. The original 

comment period to the proposed rule 

closed on July 22, 2011. The Bureau is 

reopening the comment period until 

July 9, 2012 to seek comment 

specifically on certain new data and 

information submitted during or 

obtained after the close of the original 

comment period. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 9, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2012– 

0022 or RIN 3170–AA17, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20552. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of 

Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Bureau of 

Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20552. 

All submissions must include the 

agency name and docket number or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

for this rulemaking. In general, all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

comments will be available for public 

inspection and copying at 1700 G Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20552, on official 

business days between the hours of 

10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You 

can make an appointment to inspect the 

documents by telephoning (202) 435– 

7275. 

All comments, including attachments 

and other supporting materials, will 

become part of the record and subject to 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS