```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6232-6247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01526]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Prod-2012-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).

[[Page 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=EE
RE-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 self-cleaning oven cycles per 
year; and (3) incorporation of portions of International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 705-1988, ``Methods for 
measuring the performance of microwave ovens for

[[Page 6234]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information on the EnergyGuide labeling program, 
see: www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/16cfr305_00.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 [deg]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 composition
       Test block classification             (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

[[Page 6236]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Specific heat
                                     Block diameter (inches                           Block weight (pounds     (British thermal     Heat capacity (Btu/
          Test block size                     (in))             Block height (in)            (lb))             units (Btu)/(lb-           [deg]F)
                                                                                                                   [deg]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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      95-percent
                                                                               Mean                   confidence
       Test block size          Cooking top        Heating       Surface    efficiency    Standard     interval
                                                 technology        unit         %       deviation %    () %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\     \a\ 1.01     \a\ 1.60
                                                                                 18.96
Small........................  A............  Electric Coil...          2        65.04         2.73         3.39
                               B............  Electric Smooth.          3        61.70         0.73         0.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values 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.

[[Page 6237]]

                                                   Table III.4--Carbon Steel Test Block Specifications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Block diameter      Block height       Block weight      Specific heat      Heat capacity
                     Test block size                              (in)               (in)               (lb)         (Btu/lb-[deg]F)      (Btu/[deg]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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      95-percent
                                                                               Mean       Standard    confidence
       Test block size          Cooking top        Heating       Surface    efficiency   deviation     interval
                                                 technology        unit         %            %         () %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large........................  A............  Electric Coil...          1        69.79         1.59         1.97
                               B............  Electric Smooth.          1        53.19         1.28         1.60
                                                                        2        63.24         2.03         2.52
                               C............  Gas.............          1      \a\ \b\     \a\ 0.92     \a\ 1.46
                                                                                 18.67
                               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        64.10         1.04         1.29
                                                                        3        60.89         2.70         3.35
                               E............  Induction.......          2        62.86         1.08         1.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values 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 non-ferromagnetic 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Block diameter     Block height      Block weight      Specific heat     Heat capacity
                        Test block size                               (in)              (in)              (lb)         (Btu/lb-[deg]F)    (Btu/[deg]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

[[Page 6238]]

 
    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      95-Percent
                                                                               Mean                   confidence
       Test block size          Cooking top        Heating       Surface    efficiency    Standard     interval
                                                 technology        unit         %       deviation %    () %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\     \a\ 0.59     \a\ 0.93
                                                                                 18.64
                               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        63.26         0.79         0.98
                                                                        3        62.88         0.65         0.81
                               E............  Induction.......          2        63.27         1.19         1.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values 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\ Rust also formed on the solid carbon steel test blocks, 
which could affect heat transfer and repeatability. These issues 
would likely be more significant for the carbon steel hybrid test 
blocks due to the additional heat transfer surface between the base 
and the test block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Block diameter     Block height      Block weight      Specific heat     Heat capacity
                        Test block size                               (in)              (in)              (lb)         (Btu/lb-[deg]F)    (Btu/[deg]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

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      95-Percent
                                                                               Mean       Standard    confidence
       Test block size          Cooking top        Heating       Surface    efficiency   deviation     interval
                                                 technology        unit         %            %         () %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\     \a\ 1.16     \a\ 1.85
                                                                                 16.27
                               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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Average 95-percent
           Test block type              Average efficiency  %       Average standard       confidence interval
                                                                      deviation  %           () %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values 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

[[Page 6240]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 7.1.Z2 of the Draft IEC 60350 Amendment, ``Cookware 
and water amount'', specifies the general construction of the 
cookware, and Table Z3, ``Sizes of standardized cookware and water 
amounts'', specifies the dimensions of the cookware and quantity of 
water based on the diameter or the surface unit under test.

                                                   Table III.11--IEC Cookware and Water Specifications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Cookware       Base thickness     Total height      Lid diameter      Water weight
                         Cookware size                           diameter  (in)         (in)              (in)              (in)              (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 [deg]F (a simmering 
temperature), but as close to 194 [deg]F as possible without additional 
adjustment of the low-power setting. The test ends 20 minutes after the 
temperature increases above 194 [deg]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 [deg]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-to-test even at the same reduced setting. 
The test method only requires that the simmering temperature stay above 
194 [deg]F for a valid test. Certain tests would produce simmering 
temperatures around 196 [deg]F, close to the 194[emsp14][deg]F goal, 
while others would rise above 200 [deg]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 [deg]F test would use significantly more energy.
    To address this concern, DOE developed additional calculations to 
estimate the efficiency of the water-heating 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 water-heating efficiency results using 
the DOE calculation method.

                               Table III.12--Water-Heating Efficiency Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      95-percent
                                                                               Mean       Standard    confidence
        Cookware size           Cooking  top       Heating       Surface    efficiency   deviation     interval
                                                 technology        unit         %            %         ()  %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large........................  A............  Electric Coil...          1        79.81         1.66         2.06
                               B............  Electric........          1        61.81         2.83         3.52
                                              Smooth..........          2        75.88         3.11         3.86
                               C............  Gas.............          1      \a\ \b\     \a\ 2.83     \a\ 4.51
                                                                                 26.29
                               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........          3        68.09         4.12         5.11
                                              Smooth..........
                               D............  Induction.......          2        79.35         0.37         0.46
                                                                        3        80.67         1.71         2.13
                               E............  Induction.......          2        75.99         2.03         2.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values 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.

[[Page 6241]]

                                           Table III.13--Overall Results Comparison--Coefficient of Variation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Standard deviation
                                                                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Surface                                                          Water-
          Test block size              Cooking  top      Heating technology      unit                    Carbon       Carbon     Stainless     heating
                                                                                         Aluminum  %    steel  %      steel        steel      efficiency
                                                                                                                    hybrid  %    hybrid  %        %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large.............................  A.................  Electric Coil.......          1         2.22         1.59         1.87         0.87         1.66
                                    B.................  Electric............          1         0.64         1.28         0.78         0.46         2.83
                                                        Smooth..............          2         1.06         2.03         0.64         0.46         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          N/A         1.04         0.79         1.47         0.37
                                                                                      3          N/A         2.70         0.65         0.68         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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values 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 [deg]F  
9 [deg]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 water-heating tests may better reflect 
actual consumer behavior for cooking tops, and invites comment on 
whether water-heating tests should be considered in place of the metal 
block-heating tests. DOE also invites comment on the appropriate test 
method and conditions for water-heating tests, and the burden that 
would be incurred by more stringent specifications for ambient 
conditions.
6. Non-Circular Electric Surface 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 6242]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Estimated average revenue is based on financial information 
provided for the two small businesses in reports provided by Dun and 
Bradstreet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 6244]]

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-general-counsel. DOE examined today's 
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and 
determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, 
nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or 
more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 6246]]

    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 block-heating tests, and on the 
appropriate water-heating test method and conditions. DOE also invites 
comment on the burden that would be incurred by more stringent 
specifications for ambient conditions. (See section III.C.5)
4. Non-Circular Electric Surface 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

0
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.

0
2. Section 430.2 is amended by revising the definition for 
``conventional cooking top'' to read as follows:

Sec.  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]

0
3. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the Note;
0
b. Revising section 1.1 in section 1. Definitions;
0
c. Revising sections 2.7, 2.7.2, and 2.7.3 in section 2. Test 
Conditions;
0
d. Revising sections 3.1.2 and 3.3.2 in section 3. Test Methods and 
Measurements; and
0
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, user-initiated, short-duration 
function that is associated with an active mode.
* * * * *

2. Test Conditions

* * * * *
    2.7 Test blocks for conventional oven and cooking top. The test 
blocks for conventional ovens and the test block bodies for 
conventional cooking tops shall be made of aluminum alloy No. 6061, 
with a specific heat of 0.23 Btu/lb- [deg]F (0.96 kJ/[kg / [deg]C]) 
and with any temper that will give a coefficient of thermal 
conductivity of 1073.3 to 1189.1 Btu-in/h-ft\2\- [deg]F (154.8 to 
171.5 W/[m / [deg]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- 
[deg]F (0.46 kJ/[kg / [deg]C]) and with coefficient of thermal 
conductivity of 172.0 to 190.0 Btu-in/h-ft\2\- [deg]F (24.8 to 27.4 
W/[m / [deg]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

[[Page 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 6.250.05 inches 
(158.81.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 2.5 inches (64 
mm) high and shall weigh 7.50.1 lbs (3.400.05 kg). The small test block base, W3, shall be 
6.250.05 inches (158.81.3 mm) in diameter, 
approximately 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) high and shall weigh 2.20.1 lbs (1.000.05 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 
90.05 inches (228.61.3 mm) in diameter, 
approximately 2.7 inches (69 mm) high and shall weigh 16.90.1 lbs (7.670.05 kg). The large test block base, 
W5, shall be 90.05 inches (228.61.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) high 
and shall weigh 4.30.1 lbs (1.950.05 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[emsp14][deg]F (80 [deg]C) above its initial test 
block temperature, immediately reduce the energy input rate to 
255 percent of the maximum energy input rate. After 
150.1 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JA13.011

Where:
    WTB = measured weight of test block body, 
W2 or W4, expressed in pounds (kg).
    Cp,TB = 0.23 Btu/lb-[deg]F (0.96 kJ/kg / [deg]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-[deg]F (0.46 kJ/kg / [deg]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 [deg]F ([deg]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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JA13.012

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 x H) + (EIC x 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 watt-hours (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
```