[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71894-71928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28212]



[[Page 71893]]

Vol. 79

Wednesday,

No. 232

December 3, 2014

Part III





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Part 430





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Conventional Cooking 
Products; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 71894]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013]
RIN 1904-AC71


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Conventional 
Cooking Products

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and corrections.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On January 18, 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to revise its test 
procedures for cooking products established under the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act. The NOPR proposed a change to the test equipment that 
would allow for measuring the energy efficiency of induction cooking 
tops and ranges. To address issues raised in comments regarding the 
NOPR, DOE conducted additional research and analysis. In this 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR), DOE modifies its 
proposal to change the test equipment to allow for measuring the energy 
efficiency of induction cooking tops and proposes to add an additional 
test block size for electric surface units with large diameters (both 
induction and electric resistance). In addition, DOE proposes methods 
to test non-circular electric surface units, electric surface units 
with flexible concentric cooking zones, and full-surface induction 
cooking tops. In this SNOPR, DOE also proposes amendments to add a 
larger test block size to test gas surface units with higher input 
rates. DOE also proposes to incorporate methods for measuring 
conventional oven volume, to clarify that the existing oven test block 
must be used to test all ovens regardless of input rate, and to measure 
the energy consumption and efficiency of conventional ovens equipped 
with an oven separator. Additionally, DOE is proposing technical 
corrections to the units of measurement in certain calculations and the 
annual useful cooking energy output for gas cooktops.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
NOPR no later than February 2, 2015. See section V, ``Public 
Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR for Test 
Procedures for conventional cooking products, and provide docket number 
EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-
AC71. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include 
the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR+PS;rpp=50;so=DESC;sb=postedDate;po=0;D=E
ERE-2012-BT-TP-0013. This Web page will contain a link to the docket 
for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web 
page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, 
including public comments, in the docket. See section V for information 
on how to submit comments through regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 
586-2945 or by email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 202-287-6122. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
    B. Test Procedures for Cooking Products
    C. The January 2013 NOPR
    D. The February 2014 RFI
II. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Corrections
III. Discussion
    A. Products Covered by This Test Procedure Rulemaking
    1. Induction Cooking Products
    2. Gas Cooking Products With High Input Rates
    B. Effective Date
    C. Conventional Cooking Top Active Mode Test Procedure
    1. Test Block Construction
    2. Water-Heating Test Method
    3. Test Block Sizes
    4. Non-Circular and Flexible Surface Units
    5. Improved Heat Transfer Within the Hybrid Test Block
    6. Expected Cooking Top Performance
    7. Clarification of the Reduced Energy Input Setting
    D. Gas Cooking Products With High Input Rates
    1. Surface Units With Input Rates Greater Than 14,000 Btu/h
    2. Gas Ovens With Input Rates Greater Than 22,500 Btu/h
    E. Incorporating by Reference AHAM-OV-1-2011 for Determination 
of the Volume of Conventional Ovens
    F. Conventional Oven Separator
    G. Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure
    H. Technical Corrections to the Calculation of Derived Results 
From Test Measurements
    I. Headings for Conventional Cooking Top Calculations
    J. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

[[Page 71895]]

    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
V. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
    1. Hybrid Test Blocks
    2. Typical Cookware Thickness
    3. Additional Test Block Size for Electric Resistance and 
Induction Surface Units
    4. Non-Circular and Flexible Electric Surface Units
    5. Thermal grease characteristics
    6. Clarification of the Reduced Energy Input Setting
    7. Gas Cooking Top Surface Units with Input Rates >14,000 Btu/h
    8. Gas Ovens with High Input Rates
    9. Test Method to Measure Oven Cavity Volume
    10. Test Method for Conventional Ovens with an Oven Separator
    11. Technical Corrections
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to 
EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy 
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 
18, 2012).) Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was re-
designated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 
6291-6309, as codified), establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program 
for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.'' These include 
residential kitchen ranges and ovens, the subject of this SNOPR. (42 
U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency 
of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA.

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test 
procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably 
designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, 
energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product 
during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall 
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test 
procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test 
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered 
product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(e)(1))

B. Test Procedures for Cooking Products

    DOE's test procedures for conventional ranges, conventional cooking 
tops, conventional ovens, and microwave ovens are codified at appendix 
I to subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
part 430 (Appendix I).
    DOE established the test procedures in a final rule published in 
the Federal Register on May 10, 1978. 43 FR 20108, 20120-28. These test 
procedures did not cover induction cooking products because they were, 
at the time, relatively new products, and represented a small share of 
the market. 43 FR 20117. DOE revised its test procedures for cooking 
products to more accurately measure their efficiency and energy use, 
and published the revisions as a final rule in 1997. 62 FR 51976 (Oct. 
3, 1997). These test procedure amendments did not address induction 
cooking, but included: (1) A reduction in the annual useful cooking 
energy; (2) a reduction in the number of 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 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 subsequently conducted a rulemaking to address standby and off 
mode energy consumption, as well as certain active mode testing 
provisions, for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and 
conventional cooking products. DOE published a final rule on October 
31, 2012 (77 FR 65942, hereinafter referred to as the October 2012 
Final Rule), adopting standby and off mode provisions that satisfy the 
EPCA requirement that DOE include measures of standby mode and off mode 
energy consumption in its test procedures for residential products, if 
technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))

C. The January 2013 NOPR

    On January 30, 2013, DOE published a NOPR (78 FR 6232, hereinafter 
referred to as the January 2013 NOPR) proposing amendments to Appendix 
I that would allow for testing the active mode energy consumption of 
induction cooking products; i.e., conventional cooking tops and ranges 
equipped with induction heating technology for one or more surface 
units \2\ on the cooking top. DOE proposed to incorporate induction 
cooking tops by amending the definition of ``conventional cooking top'' 
to include induction heating technology. Furthermore, DOE proposed to 
require for all cooking tops the use of test equipment compatible with 
induction technology. Specifically, DOE proposed to replace the solid 
aluminum test blocks currently specified in the test procedure for 
cooking tops with hybrid test blocks comprising two separate pieces: An 
aluminum body and a stainless steel base. Appendix I currently 
specifies the test block size for electric cooking tops based on the 
surface unit diameter; however, there are no provisions for determining 
which test block size to use for non-circular electric surface units. 
In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also proposed amendments to include a 
clarification that the test block size be determined using the smallest 
dimension of the electric surface unit. 78 FR 6232, 6234 (Jan. 30, 
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 71896]]

D. The February 2014 RFI

    On February 12, 2014, DOE published a request for information (RFI) 
(79 FR 8337, hereinafter referred to as the February 2014 RFI) to 
initiate an effort to determine whether to amend the current energy 
conservation standards for conventional cooking products. As part of 
the February 2014 RFI, DOE stated that it tentatively plans to consider 
energy conservation standards for all consumer conventional cooking 
products, including commercial-style gas cooking products \3\ and 
standard gas cooking products that have burners with higher input 
rates. These products were not included in the analysis underlying the 
previous standards rulemaking due to a lack of data upon which to 
determine the measurement of energy efficiency for these products. 79 
FR 8337, 8341 (Feb. 12, 2014); 74 FR 16040, 16054 (Apr. 8, 2009). 
Because DOE is tentatively planning to consider energy conservation 
standards for all gas cooking products, including those with high input 
rate cooking tops and ovens, DOE is also considering amending the 
cooking products test procedure in Appendix I to include methods for 
measuring the energy consumption of these products as part of the 
SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DOE considered commercial-style gas cooking tops to be those 
products that incorporate cooking tops with higher input rate 
burners (i.e., one or more burners greater than 14,000 Btu/h) and 
heavy-duty grates that provide faster cooking and the ability to 
cook larger quantities of food in larger cooking vessels. DOE also 
stated that the burners are optimized for the larger-scale cookware 
to maintain high cooking performance. Similarly, DOE considered 
commercial-style gas ovens to have higher input rates (i.e., greater 
than 22,500 Btu/h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Corrections

    Based on review of the public comments received in response to the 
January 2013 NOPR and the potential for considering additional product 
types in future energy conservation standards rulemakings for 
conventional cooking products as discussed in the February 2014 RFI, 
DOE conducted further analysis in support of the proposals discussed in 
this SNOPR.
    DOE continues to propose a hybrid test block comprising a stainless 
steel base and aluminum body for conventional cooking top testing, 
including conventional cooking tops with induction heating technology. 
Further testing conducted by DOE at multiple test laboratories 
indicated that this test block type produces repeatable and 
reproducible results. For comparison, DOE also conducted additional 
water-heating tests at multiple test laboratories, but found the 
results to be less repeatable and reproducible than the hybrid block-
heating tests, consistent with the results discussed in the January 
2013 NOPR. 78 FR 6232, 6240-41 (Jan. 30, 2013). DOE's testing, however, 
showed that adding a layer of thermal grease improves the thermal 
contact between the base and body of the test block and results in 
thermal behavior of the test block that is more representative of real-
world cooking vessels. Therefore, in this SNOPR, DOE proposes to 
require the application of thermal grease between the stainless steel 
base and aluminum body to improve thermal contact between the two 
parts. The proposed thermal grease would be required to have a thermal 
conductivity of at least 1.73 British thermal units per hour per foot 
per degree Fahrenheit (Btu/hr-ft-[deg]F) (1.0 watts per meter per 
degree Kelvin (W/m-K)).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In support of the investigative testing performed for the 
discussion in section III.C.5, DOE tested two types of thermal 
grease, each having different thermal conductivities according to 
manufacturer published data at or above 1.73 Btu/hr-ft-[deg]F. 
Efficiencies obtained with either type of thermal grease for an 
induction cooktop fell within the expected and observed test-to-test 
variation as discussed in sections III.C.1 and III.C.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its additional investigative testing, DOE determined that the 
existing test block diameters, 6.25 inches and 9 inches, may not be 
appropriate for testing conventional electric cooking top surface units 
with large diameters. For large-diameter electric surface units, the 9-
inch test block typically results in lower measured efficiencies when 
compared to a larger test block with a diameter that may more 
accurately reflect consumer use. To address this issue, DOE proposes a 
10.5-inch diameter hybrid test block for testing electric cooking top 
surface units with diameters of at least 10 inches.
    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed that test block selection 
for non-circular electric cooking top surface units be based on the 
surface unit's shortest dimension. 78 FR 6232, 6241 (Jan. 30, 2013). 
Based on stakeholder feedback and a review of the market, DOE has 
revised its proposal to address the different types of units available 
on the market. In the SNOPR, DOE proposes that for electric cooking 
tops: (1) Test blocks for non-circular surface units be selected based 
on the surface unit's shortest dimension; (2) surface units with 
flexible concentric sizes (i.e., units with multiple zones of the same 
shape but varying shortest dimensions) shall be tested at each unique 
size setting; and (3) full-surface induction cooking tops with ``cook 
anywhere'' functionality be tested with all three test block sizes in 
the center of the usable cooking surface. DOE also clarifies in the 
SNOPR that for all cooking tops, specialty surface units such as bridge 
zones, warming plates, grills, and griddles, are not covered by 
Appendix I.
    DOE also proposes a clarification to the cooking top test procedure 
in Appendix I to specify that the maximum energy input rate, as 
referenced in section 3.1.2 of Appendix I, shall be the average energy 
input rate determined over the duration of the test period at the 
maximum setting. The average energy input rate determined over the 
duration of the test period at the reduced setting shall be 25  5 percent of the maximum energy input rate.
    Additionally, DOE is proposing amendments that would allow for 
testing the active mode energy consumption of gas cooking tops with 
higher surface unit input rates. Based on investigative testing of 
these cooking tops using a range of test block sizes to represent 
larger food loads and cookware diameters, DOE proposes that all gas 
surface units rated above 14,000 Btu/h be tested using a 10.5-inch 
hybrid test block. For gas ovens, investigative testing of larger oven 
test blocks for use in ovens with higher input rates did not suggest 
that the oven test block size should be modified. Thus, DOE proposes 
that the existing oven test block be used to test all ovens, including 
ovens having input rates greater than 22,500 Btu/h.
    As discussed in the February 2014 RFI, DOE is considering amending 
the standards for conventional cooking products. As part of any amended 
standards for conventional ovens, DOE may propose standards as a 
function of oven cavity volume. Because Appendix I does not currently 
contain a measure of conventional oven volume, DOE considered 
methodology for determining this value. Based on DOE's review of the 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard OV-1-2011 
``Procedures for the Determination and Expression of the Volume of 
Household Microwave and Conventional Ovens'' (AHAM-OV-1-2011), DOE 
tentatively concludes that this test method provides a repeatable and 
reproducible method for measuring conventional oven cavity volume. As a 
result, DOE is proposing in the SNOPR to incorporate by reference the 
relevant sections of AHAM-OV-1-2011 for determining conventional oven 
cavity volume in the DOE test procedure.
    Based on DOE's review of products available on the market, DOE is 
additionally proposing test methods for

[[Page 71897]]

conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator that allows for 
cooking using the entire oven cavity in the absence of the separator 
or, if the separator is installed, splitting the oven into two smaller 
cavities that may be operated individually with independent temperature 
controls. DOE is proposing in the SNOPR that conventional ovens 
equipped with an oven separator shall be tested in each possible oven 
configuration (i.e., full oven cavity, upper cavity, and lower cavity) 
with the results averaged.
    DOE received comments from interested parties agreeing with its 
preliminary determination in the January 2013 NOPR that the existing 
definitions of standby mode and off mode do not require revision. 78 FR 
6232, 6241 (Jan. 30, 2013). Therefore DOE is not proposing changes to 
these definitions in the supplemental proposal. Additionally, DOE did 
not observe any standby mode or off mode operation or features unique 
to induction cooking tops and cooking tops and ovens with high input 
rate burners tested in support of the SNOPR that would warrant changes 
to the standby mode and off mode test methods for conventional cooking 
tops. Id.
    DOE is also proposing technical corrections to the calculation of 
derived results from test measurements in section 4 of Appendix I. 
Section 4 contains a number of references to incorrect units of 
measurement and an incorrect value for the annual useful cooking energy 
output for gas cooktops.
    Finally, DOE noted that the headings for sections 4.2 and 4.2.1 in 
Appendix I regarding the calculations for conventional cooking tops 
were inadvertently removed. As a result, DOE is proposing to add the 
headings for section 4.2 ``Conventional cooking top,'' and section 
4.2.1, ``Surface unit cooking efficiency'' to appropriately describe 
these sections.

III. Discussion

A. Products Covered by This Test Procedure Rulemaking

1. Induction Cooking Products
    As discussed in section I of this notice, the test procedures 
currently in Appendix I do not apply to induction cooking products. In 
the January 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the definition of 
``conventional cooking top'' to include products that feature electric 
inductive heating surface units. DOE noted that the definition of 
``conventional range'' would remain unchanged but would include the 
cooking top component of a range that heats by means of induction 
technology. 78 FR 6232, 6234-35 (Jan. 30, 2013). DOE similarly proposed 
in the January 2013 NOPR to revise the definition of ``active mode'' 
included in Appendix I to account for electric inductive heating, 
consistent with the proposed definition of ``conventional cooking 
top.'' Id.
    The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and BSH Home 
Appliances Corporation (BSH) commented that they do not oppose the 
proposed amended definitions of ``conventional cooking top'' or 
``active mode,'' but do oppose the overall amendments to include 
inductive heating in the test procedure at this time. (AHAM, TP No. 7 
at p. 2 \5\ BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 2) AHAM and BSH stated that they do not 
believe DOE's proposed amendments to the test procedure allow for 
direct comparisons across cooking technologies, and claimed that 
because induction cooking tops and ranges do not heat the test block 
directly, the induction technology will be penalized. (AHAM, TP No. 7 
at p. 2; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 2) Natural Resources Defense Council 
(NRDC) supported the expansion of the cooking products test procedure 
to include induction cooking products, based on increased market 
availability of these products. (NRDC, TP No. 4, at p. 1) NRDC also 
urged DOE to ensure that its test procedures allow for comparisons of 
efficiency across product types (gas, electric resistance, and 
induction units) so that consumers are able to make informed decisions. 
(NRDC, TP No. 4 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 2'' identifies 
a written comment (1) made by AHAM; (2) recorded in document number 
7 that is filed in the docket of this test procedures rulemaking 
(Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013) and maintained in the Resource 
Room of the Building Technologies Program; and (3) which appears on 
page 2 of document number 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From its testing in support of this rulemaking, DOE determined that 
the proposed amendments accurately compare the energy consumption of 
induction cooking tops with the energy consumption of other 
conventional cooking tops. Although induction cooking tops heat the 
hybrid test block differently compared to other conventional cooking 
tops, this manner of heating is representative of how food loads in 
pots or pans are heated during typical consumer use (i.e., the thermal 
energy is generated in the stainless steel base which represents the 
cookware, and then is transferred by conduction to the aluminum body 
which simulates the food load.) Additionally, DOE maintains the 
proposal that the hybrid test block be used to test all cooking top 
types (gas, electric resistance, and induction), which would allow for 
comparable efficiency measurements across all of the covered 
technologies.
2. Gas Cooking Products With High Input Rates
    In the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for 
conventional cooking products, DOE excluded ``commercial-style'' 
residential gas cooking products from its analysis in considering 
whether to adopt amended energy conservation standards, due to a lack 
of available data for determining efficiency characteristics of those 
products. DOE also noted that its cooking products test procedures may 
not adequately measure the performance of higher input rate burners. 74 
FR 16040, 16054 (Apr. 8, 2009); 72 FR 64432, 64444-45 (Nov. 15, 2007). 
DOE considers a cooking top burner with a high input rate to be a 
burner rated greater than 14,000 Btu/h. Similarly, DOE considers gas 
ovens with high burner input rates to be those with burners rated 
greater than 22,500 Btu/h.
    Based on investigative testing in support of this notice, DOE is 
proposing to amend the conventional cooking top test procedure in 
Appendix I to measure the energy use of gas surface units with high 
input rates and to clarify that the existing conventional oven test 
procedure is appropriate for ovens with high input rates. DOE notes 
that the current definitions for ``conventional cooking top,'' 
``conventional oven,'' and ``conventional range'' in 10 CFR 430.2 
already cover conventional gas cooking products with higher input rates 
(including commercial-style gas cooking products), as these products 
are household cooking appliances with surface units or compartments 
intended for the cooking or heating of food by means of a gas flame.

B. Effective Date

    The amended test procedure would become effective 30 days after any 
test procedure final rule is published in the Federal Register. 
Pursuant to EPCA, manufacturers of covered products must use the 
applicable test procedure as the basis for determining that their 
products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted pursuant to EPCA and for making representations about the 
efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) 
Beginning 180 days after publication of any test procedure final rule, 
representations related to the energy consumption of conventional 
cooking products must be based upon results generated under the 
applicable provisions of the amended test

[[Page 71898]]

procedures in Appendix I. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))

C. Conventional Cooking Top Active Mode Test Procedure

    The current active mode test procedure for conventional cooking 
tops involves heating an aluminum test block on each surface unit of 
the cooking top. Two aluminum test blocks, of different diameters, are 
specified for testing different size surface units. The small test 
block (6.25 inches diameter) is used for electric surface units with 
diameters of 7 inches or less, and the large test block (9 inches 
diameter) is used for electric surface units with diameters greater 
than 7 inches and all gas surface units. Once the initial test and 
ambient conditions are met, the surface unit is turned to its maximum 
energy input setting. After the test block temperature increases by 144 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), the surface unit input rate is immediately 
reduced to 25 percent  5 percent of the maximum energy 
input rate for 15  0.1 minutes. The efficiency of the 
surface unit is calculated as the ratio of the energy transferred to 
the test block (based on its temperature rise) to the energy consumed 
by the cooking top during the test. The cooking top cooking efficiency 
is calculated as the average efficiency of the surface units on the 
cooking top. The current active mode test procedure is compatible with 
gas cooking tops and electric cooking tops with electric resistance 
heating elements (i.e., electric resistance heating under a smooth 
ceramic surface and open coil electric resistance heating).
1. Test Block Construction
    Induction cooking products are compatible with only ferromagnetic 
cooking vessels because the high magnetic permeability of these vessels 
concentrates the induced current near the surface of the metal, 
increasing resistance and thus heating. Aluminum is not a ferromagnetic 
metal--its lower magnetic permeability allows the magnetic field to 
penetrate further into the material so that the induced current flows 
with little resistance, and thus does not heat up when it encounters an 
oscillating magnetic field. Therefore, the aluminum test blocks 
currently required by Appendix I are not appropriate for testing 
induction cooking products.
    As part of the January 2013 NOPR, DOE conducted testing to 
investigate potential substitute test blocks for testing induction 
cooking products. DOE conducted tests using the same basic test method 
specified in Appendix I, as described above, using carbon steel, carbon 
steel hybrid, and stainless steel hybrid test blocks. 78 FR 6232, 6235 
(Jan. 30, 2013). Table III.1 describes the construction of the current 
aluminum test blocks and the three substitute test blocks.

            Table III.1--Test Block Composition Descriptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Test block 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its initial investigative testing, DOE observed that the 
stainless steel hybrid test block, hereinafter referred to as the 
hybrid test block, produced the most repeatable results, and proposed 
amending Appendix I to require these blocks for all cooking top 
testing. 78 FR 6232, 6235, 6241 (Jan. 30, 2013). DOE verified these 
initial conclusions through additional testing conducted for this SNOPR 
(see section III.C.1 through section III.C.4 of this notice), and 
further evaluated an improvement to the hybrid test block through the 
application of thermal grease between the stainless steel base and 
aluminum body (see section III.C.5 of this SNOPR.)
    In response to the January 2013 NOPR, AHAM asked whether DOE had 
information on the typical thickness of a pot or pan, questioning the 
proposed thickness of the hybrid test block base at 0.25 inches. (AHAM, 
Public Meeting Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 29) \6\ Through a market 
search, DOE determined that the typical thickness of cookware 
compatible with induction cooking tops range from 20 gauge (~0.04 inch) 
to 8 gauge (~0.17 inch) depending on the type and application of the 
cookware.\7\ Heavy-gauge pans have thicknesses as large as 8 or 9 
millimeters (mm) (0.32 to 0.35 inch). Additionally, the IEC Standard 
60350-2 Edition 1.0 ``Household electric cooking appliances--Part 2: 
Hobs--Method for measuring performance'' specifies test cookware with a 
base thickness of 6 mm (0.24 inch). DOE selected the 0.25-inch 
stainless steel base to reduce the impact of warping but still remain 
within the plausible thickness of a pot or pan, and to harmonize with 
the IEC cookware base (to the nearest common dimension in inches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, TP 
No. 5 at p. 29'' identifies an oral comment that DOE received during 
the March 4, 2013, NOPR public meeting, was recorded in the public 
meeting transcript in the docket for this test procedure rulemaking 
(Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013), and is maintained in the Resource 
Room of the Building Technologies Program. This particular notation 
refers to a comment (1) made by AHAM during the public meeting; (2) 
recorded in document number 5, which is the public meeting 
transcript that is filed in the docket of this test procedure 
rulemaking; and (3) which appears on page 29 of document number 5.
    \7\ Cookware Manufacturers Association. Please see: http://www.cookware.org/tools_2.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM and BSH expressed concern that the results presented in the 
January 2013 NOPR were obtained using one laboratory and a single set 
of test blocks. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 4; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 4) AHAM 
and BSH asked whether DOE had examined whether warping of the blocks 
might impact their heat transfer. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, TP 
No. 5 at p. 27; AHAM, TP No. 7 at pp. 2, 4; BSH, TP No. 8 at pp. 2, 4) 
AHAM and BSH emphasized that any change in the flatness of the test 
blocks, including between layers, whether due to construction or 
warping over time, could impact test results and increase variation 
from test to test as there might not be uniform contact between the 
block and the surface unit. AHAM and BSH requested that DOE study the 
impact of flatness on energy measurements to define technically 
feasible and consistent limits for flatness. (AHAM, TP No. 7, at pp. 3-
4; BSH, TP No. 8 at pp. 3-4) AHAM and BSH also commented that the 
proposed flatness of 0.002 total indicator reading (TIR) is not 
technically feasible for the 9-inch diameter test block because it 
cannot be verified with commonly accepted laboratory equipment. Id.
    DOE evaluated the amount of warping observed for both the stainless 
steel base and aluminum body of the 6.25-inch and 9-inch hybrid test 
blocks originally

[[Page 71899]]

purchased for testing in support of the January 2013 NOPR. Each of 
these test blocks underwent approximately 100 tests. The aluminum body 
in both test block sizes remained within the 0.002 TIR tolerance 
specified in the existing test procedure. However, the stainless steel 
base for both the 6.25-inch and 9-inch test block did not remain within 
tolerance, resulting in a flatness greater than 0.002 TIR but less than 
0.004 inch TIR after one year of use. The cooking tops evaluated for 
this test series included the test sample listed in Table III.2.

                                      Table III.2--Cooking Top Test Sample
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Surface unit
    Cooking  top unit           Heating technology             Surface unit        Surface unit      max rated
       designation                                             designation           diameter       power  (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance...  Front Right (FR).......               9            3000
A.......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance...  Back Left (BL).........               6            1200
B.......................  Coil_Electric Resistance.....  Front Right (FR).......               8            2350
B.......................  Coil_Electric Resistance.....  Front Left (FL)........               6            1500
C.......................  Smooth_Induction.............  Back Right (BR)........              10            3300
C.......................  Smooth_Induction.............  Front Left (FL)........               7            2400
D.......................  Smooth_Induction.............  Front Right (FR).......              11            3700
D.......................  Smooth_Induction.............  Back Right (BR)........               6            1800
E.......................  Gas..........................  Front Right (FR).......  ..............        \a\ 9000
F.......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance...  Front Right (FR).......              12            3000
F.......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance...  Back Left (BL).........               8            2400
G.......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance...  Front Right (FR).......              12            3000
G.......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance...  Back Left (BL).........               6            1200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Gas surface unit max rated power is in Btu/h.

    As part of the testing conducted for the SNOPR, DOE fabricated a 
new set of test blocks to evaluate the effects of potential warping and 
to evaluate the reproducibility of the test procedure between multiple 
test laboratories. DOE conducted tests with these new test blocks as 
well as additional tests with the original test blocks that exceeded 
the 0.002 inch TIR requirement. The results shown in Table III.3 
provide a comparison between tests run with in-tolerance hybrid test 
blocks at Laboratory 1 and out-of-tolerance test blocks at Laboratory 
2.

                                        Table III.3--Block Warping Comparison of Measured Surface Unit Efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Mean            Mean
                                                                                                            efficiency      efficiency     Difference in
           Test block size              Cooking  top unit      Heating technology        Surface unit      (Laboratory 1   (Laboratory 2     measured
                                           designation                                   designation        <0.002 inch     <0.004 inch     efficiency
                                                                                                          TIR) (percent)  TIR) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9-inch Test Block...................  B                     Coil_Electric            FR                            71.87           71.50            0.37
                                                             Resistance.
                                      D                     Induction..............  FR                            73.59           72.63            0.96
6.25-inch Test Block................  B                     Coil_Electric            FL                            71.42           71.80           -0.39
                                                             Resistance.
                                      D                     Induction..............  BR                            72.71           73.21           -0.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The difference in the average measured surface unit efficiency 
between the test blocks in tolerance and out of tolerance and between 
the two test facilities is consistently less than 1 percent. 
Additionally, the out-of-tolerance test block measured efficiencies are 
not consistently higher or lower than the in-tolerance test block 
efficiencies, suggesting that the out-of-tolerance test blocks do not 
have a clear positive or negative effect on the measured efficiencies. 
Based on these results, DOE tentatively concludes that the hybrid test 
block produces results that are reproducible and that minor warping has 
a minimal effect on measured efficiency.
    DOE proposes to maintain the current specified flatness of 0.002 
inch TIR for the construction of both the aluminum body and stainless 
steel base of the hybrid test block. Based on the testing results 
showing that hybrid test block pieces having a flatness of 0.004 inch 
TIR or less will not greatly impact measured efficiency, DOE proposes 
that the stainless steel hybrid test blocks may continue to be used 
until their flatness exceeds 0.004 inch TIR. This will help reduce the 
burden associated with replacing the test blocks and ensuring they 
remain within the flatness tolerance. DOE expects that standard machine 
shops will likely have the ability to measure flatness within the 
specified tolerances.
    AHAM and BSH also stated that larger test blocks may have an 
increased potential for warping that could lead to increased variation 
in the test results, especially if a larger test block will need to 
reach higher temperatures. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 4; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 
4) AHAM and BSH suggested that larger test blocks may not be 
technologically feasible because there is likely no way to transfer the 
heat out of the block fast enough. Id. Additionally, AHAM and BSH 
suggested that as the temperature of the block increases, the heat loss 
increases, and could potentially result in an inaccurate measurement. 
(AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 5; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 5)
    To address the concerns of the large test block reaching higher 
temperatures, DOE evaluated the final block temperatures observed for 
both the 6.25-inch and 9-inch test blocks. Figure III.1 correlates test 
block final temperature with surface unit rated power for induction, 
smooth--electric resistance, and coil--electric resistance cooking 
tops.

[[Page 71900]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.001

    For a given, rated, surface unit power, final temperatures  for the 
6.25-inch test block were higher than for the 9-inch test block. 
Generally, the 9-inch test block does not reach significantly higher 
temperatures when compared to the 6.25-inch test block. Therefore, DOE 
does not expect any additional warping concerns or heat transfer issues 
for the 9-inch test block compared to the 6.25-inch test block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Note that because the application of thermal grease between 
the hybrid test block pieces affected the rate of temperature 
increase of the test block, as discussed further in section III.C.5, 
the final temperatures presented in Figure III.1 were obtained using 
the hybrid test block with thermal grease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM and BSH noted that because AHAM members have seen variation in 
stainless steel composition within the same nominal steel type (e.g., 
differences in the amounts of carbon and chrome), DOE should study the 
impact of changes in the stainless steel composition on the surface 
unit efficiency measurement. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 4; BSH, TP No. 8 at 
p.4)
    DOE spoke with material suppliers during the test block fabrication 
process. Suppliers did not express any concern that magnetic or thermal 
properties might change from lot to lot of stainless steel alloy 430. 
Moreover, there is limited variation of the thermal properties even 
among different grades of stainless steel alloy. Thus, DOE does not 
anticipate any significant variation within a single grade of stainless 
steel 430. Additionally, DOE notes that the test results presented 
above in Table III.3 are based on test blocks purchased in different 
years. DOE expects that the blocks were manufactured from different 
lots of stainless steel and aluminum, yet even with the warping issues 
and testing at different labs, they still produced consistent results.
    For the reasons described above, DOE proposes an additional 
clarification requiring that the block flatness of the hybrid test 
blocks must be maintained within 0.004 inch TIR for testing.
2. Water-Heating Test Method
    For the January 2013 NOPR, DOE also conducted tests to heat water 
in standardized cooking vessels to compare test repeatability with the 
metal block-heating tests. DOE stated that water provides a heating 
medium that is more representative of actual consumer use because many 
foods cooked on a cooking top have a relatively high liquid content. 
However, DOE also noted that water heating introduces additional 
sources of variability not present for metal block heating--the 
temperature distribution in the water is not always uniform, the 
properties of the water can vary from laboratory to laboratory, and the 
ambient conditions and cookware surface effects can have a large impact 
on the water boiling and evaporating throughout the test. DOE conducted 
these water-heating tests using the test loads and test methods 
specified in a draft amendment to the IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 1.0 
``Household electric cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Method for 
measuring performance'' (Draft IEC 60350 Amendment) \9\ with additional 
calculations to estimate the efficiency of the water-heating process. 
78 FR 6232, 6239-40 (Jan. 30, 2013). On April 25, 2014, IEC made 
available the draft version of IEC Standard 60350-2 Edition 2.0 
Committee Draft (IEC 60350-2 CD). DOE noted that the Draft IEC 60350 
Amendment and IEC 60350-2 CD include the same basic test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 the January 2013 
analysis, DOE chose the two IEC-specified cooking vessels with 
diameters closest to the diameters specified for the aluminum test 
blocks (6.25 inches and 9 inches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM and BSH commented that data presented in the January 2013 NOPR 
did not clearly identify the test block method as being preferable to 
the water-heating method for induction units and requested DOE perform 
an additional study to determine which method produces more accurate, 
repeatable, and reproducible results. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 2; BSH, TP 
No. 8 at p. 2) AHAM and BSH also commented that they do not believe 
that the January 2013 NOPR sufficiently demonstrated the stainless 
steel hybrid test block as the best method for testing induction 
cooking tops, and that neither of the considered test methods emerged 
as a more repeatable and reproducible method. Specifically, AHAM and 
BSH noted that in the January 2013 NOPR, the results were split, with 
about half of the standard deviations being smaller for the hybrid test 
block and half being smaller for the water-heating method.

[[Page 71901]]

(AHAM, TP No. 7 at pp. 3, 4; BSH, TP No. 8 at pp. 3, 4)
    In preparation for the SNOPR, DOE performed additional tests to 
further evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of the hybrid 
test block method as compared to the water-heating method. Table III.4 
summarizes the test results from Laboratory 1 using the hybrid test 
blocks, the aluminum-only test blocks, and the IEC 60350-2 CD water 
loads. The test sample included two induction cooking tops, two 
conventional electric cooking tops, and one conventional gas cooking 
top. Because aluminum is not compatible with induction cooking, DOE 
only tested the aluminum blocks on the three conventional cooking tops 
in the test sample. The 6.25-inch diameter test load was used for 
electric surface units with diameters of 7 inches or less. The 9-inch 
diameter test load was used for electric surface units with diameters 
greater than 7 inches and all gas surface units, as required by 
Appendix I.

                                                  Table III.4--Laboratory 1 Mean Cooking Top Efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Mean efficiency  (%)
          Test load size               Cooking  top unit      Heating technology        Surface unit     -----------------------------------------------
                                          designation                                   designation           Hybrid         Aluminum       Water load
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large \a\.........................  A                       Smooth_Electric        FR                              67.72           75.81           79.76
                                                             Resistance.
                                    B                       Coil_Electric          FR                              71.87           79.83           79.98
                                                             Resistance.
                                    C                       Induction............  BR                              70.73  ..............           78.65
                                    D                       Induction............  FR                              73.59  ..............           80.49
                                    E                       Gas..................  FR                              43.94           47.02  ..............
Small \b\.........................  A                       Smooth_Electric        BL                              66.22           71.01           70.44
                                                             Resistance.
                                    B                       Coil_Electric          FL                              71.42           76.17           76.95
                                                             Resistance.
                                    C                       Induction............  FL                              69.43  ..............           79.16
                                    D                       Induction............  BR                              72.71  ..............           78.49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Large = (9-inch for Hybrid Load and 9.45-inch for IEC Water Load).
\b\ Small = (6.25-inch for Hybrid Load and 5.91-inch for IEC Water Load).

    To investigate the laboratory-to-laboratory reproducibility of test 
results, DOE conducted testing in support of the SNOPR at two 
laboratories. Two of the units in the test sample were tested at both 
laboratories. At Laboratory 1, a set of ten tests were performed on 
each surface unit using the proposed hybrid test blocks and the IEC 
60350-2 CD water-heating test method. At Laboratory 2, three tests were 
performed for each surface unit and each test method.\10\ Table III.5 
compares the measured efficiencies for the hybrid test blocks and the 
IEC 60350-2 CD water loads for the two cooking tops that were tested at 
both test laboratories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The additional number of tests conducted at Laboratory 1, 
as compared to Laboratory 2, were primarily to evaluate 
repeatability of results from test-to-test.

                                      Table III.5--Mean Cooking Top Efficiency Comparison Between Test Laboratories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Hybrid mean                    Water load mean
                                                                                             efficiency                       efficiency
        Test block size         Cooking  top unit       Heating         Surface unit   ----------------------   Diff.   ----------------------   Diff.
                                    designation       technology        designation       Lab 1      Lab 2    (percent)    Lab 1      Lab 2    (percent)
                                                                                        (percent)  (percent)             (percent)  (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large \a\.....................  B                  Coil_Electric     FR                     71.87      71.50       0.37      79.98      79.22       0.76
                                                    Resistance.
                                D                  Induction.......  FR                     73.59      72.63       0.96      80.49      81.51      -1.02
Small \b\.....................  B                  Coil_Electric     FL                     71.42      71.80      -0.39      76.95      76.80       0.15
                                                    Resistance.
                                D                  Induction.......  FL                     72.71      73.21      -0.50      78.49      81.67      -3.18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Large = (9-inch for Hybrid Load and 9.45-inch for IEC Water Load).
\b\ Small = (6.25-inch for Hybrid Load and 5.91-inch for IEC Water Load).

    As discussed in section III.C.1 and shown in Table III.5, the 
hybrid test blocks produced reproducible results at the two test 
laboratories. The IEC 60350-2 CD test load also produced similar 
results between the two test laboratories, with a slightly greater 
difference in efficiencies compared to the hybrid test blocks for the 
two induction surface units.
    To assess the repeatability of the two test loads, Table III.6 
compares the standard deviations for each surface unit tested at 
Laboratory 1 with both the water-heating and hybrid block-heating 
tests. As shown in Table III.4, the water-heating tests generally 
result in higher measured efficiencies compared to the hybrid tests. To 
account for the higher standard deviations that may be associated with 
higher measured efficiencies, Table III.6 also includes the coefficient 
of variation for each set of tests.

                                                      Table III.6--Test Method Standard Deviations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Standard deviation      Coefficient of
                                                                                                                       (%)                variation
          Test load size               Cooking  top unit        Heating technology          Surface unit     -------------------------------------------
                                          designation                                       designation                    Water                 Water
                                                                                                                Hybrid      load      Hybrid      load
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lab 1:
    Large.........................  A                       Smooth_Electric            FR                          0.57       3.05      0.008      0.039
                                                             Resistance.

[[Page 71902]]

 
                                    B                       Coil_Electric Resistance.  FR                          1.05       2.15      0.015      0.027
                                    C                       Induction................  BR                          0.74       0.66      0.011      0.008
                                    D                       Induction................  FR                          1.02       0.57      0.014      0.007
    Small.........................  A                       Smooth_Electric            BL                          1.26       3.03      0.019      0.044
                                                             Resistance.
                                    B                       Coil_Electric Resistance.  FL                          2.01       1.50      0.028      0.020
                                    C                       Induction................  FL                          1.63       2.22      0.023      0.029
                                    D                       Induction................  BR                          1.34       0.64      0.019      0.008
Lab 2:
    Large.........................  B                       Coil_Electric Resistance.  FR                          0.39       0.37      0.004      0.004
                                    D                       Induction................  FR                          0.24       0.71      0.003      0.008
    Small.........................  B                       Coil_Electric Resistance.  FL                          0.48       4.58      0.005      0.052
                                    D                       Induction................  FL                          0.31       1.30      0.003      0.015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table III.6, the proposed DOE test method produced 
standard deviations of just over 2 percent or less for each surface 
unit. Conversely, standard deviations for the IEC 60350-2 CD water-
heating test method exceeded 3 percent for some tested surface units, 
and ranged as high as 4.58 percent. The average standard deviation for 
the proposed DOE test method across induction units was 0.60 percent 
for the 9-inch test block and 0.94 percent for the 6.25-inch test 
block. The average standard deviation across all induction units for 
the water-heating method was 0.58 percent for the large IEC cookware 
and 2.19 percent for the small IEC cookware.
    Because DOE is proposing the use of the hybrid test block for all 
surface unit types, DOE also considered the standard deviation across 
all surface unit types for each test method. The average standard 
deviation for the proposed DOE test method across all test surface 
units was 0.67 percent for the 9-inch test block and 1.17 percent for 
the 6.25-inch block. The average standard deviation across all surface 
unit types for the water-heating method was 1.25 percent for the large 
IEC cookware and 2.21 percent for the small IEC cookware. Similarly, 
the coefficients of variation for the hybrid tests were, on average, 
lower than for the water-heating tests. The average coefficient of 
variation across all surface unit types was 0.009 for the 9-inch test 
block and 0.016 for the 6.25-inch block, while the average coefficients 
of variation of the large and small IEC cookware were 0.016 and 0.028, 
respectively.
    The water-heating test variability could potentially be reduced by 
imposing more stringent tolerances on the ambient conditions than 
Appendix I requires. Ambient air pressure, temperature, and humidity 
significantly impact the amount of water that evaporates during the 
test and the temperature at which the water begins to boil. Appendix I, 
however, only specifies ambient air temperature, and its relatively 
large tolerance, 77 [deg]F  9 [deg]F, could contribute to 
increased test variability. However, AHAM and BSH also noted that if 
DOE were to adopt tighter ambient controls, it could require 
considerable financial investment to construct or modify a test 
facility to meet these requirements, depending on the limits 
identified. Test blocks also lose heat to the ambient air and the 
impact of heat loss could cause variation in test results. (AHAM, TP 
No. 7 at p. 6; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 6)
    The water-heating tests under the current DOE test conditions do 
not show an improvement in test-to-test repeatability or laboratory-to-
laboratory reproducibility compared to the hybrid block-heating tests 
across all surface unit types. For induction cooktops alone, the 
repeatability and reproducibility of the hybrid test block are 
sufficiently small. Because DOE seeks to implement a single test method 
applicable to all surface unit types, and because achieving reduced 
ambient temperature tolerances and adding humidity and pressure 
tolerances per IEC 60350-2 CD would potentially place a high burden on 
manufacturers, DOE maintains its proposal to use hybrid test blocks for 
all products covered under the proposed definition of conventional 
cooking tops and is not proposing any amendments to the existing 
ambient test conditions in Appendix I.
    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE indicated that it developed 
additional calculations to estimate the efficiency of the water-heating 
process in order to account for the amount of water that evaporated or 
boiled off. 78 FR 6232, 6240 (Jan. 30, 2013). AHAM and BSH commented 
that it is inappropriate to calculate efficiency with a water-heating 
test precisely because it is always unknown how much water evaporates 
during the test. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 5; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 5) AHAM 
and BSH also claimed they cannot fully or meaningfully evaluate the 
results DOE presented in the notice of proposed rulemaking because 
those results are based on energy efficiency, not consumption. AHAM and 
BSH requested that DOE provide energy consumption data to stakeholders 
and also analyze the energy consumption data itself in order to 
properly evaluate the accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of 
the water-heating test. AHAM and BSH suggested that it is possible that 
the standard deviations could be different if energy consumption 
results are evaluated instead of energy efficiency results and might 
indicate that the water-heating test is more reproducible and/or 
repeatable than the hybrid block test procedure. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 
5; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 5)
    Table III.7 and Table III.8 list the standard deviations and 
coefficients of variation for the energy consumption measured for the 
cooking tops in the test sample using the IEC 60350-2 CD water-heating 
test method and the proposed DOE test block. Data collected for both 
the January 2013 NOPR and this SNOPR were used to calculate the 
standard deviations and coefficients of variation presented in Table 
III.7 and Table III.8.

[[Page 71903]]



                                          Table III.7--Water-Heating Test Load Energy Consumption Repeatability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Average test
                             Cooking  top unit                                                                energy         Standard     Coefficient of
    Test load size              designation             Heating technology      Surface unit designation    consumption   deviation (Wh)     variation
                                                                                                               (Wh)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large.................  A                           Smooth_Electric            FR                                 550.93           10.14            0.02
                                                     Resistance.
                        B                           Coil_Electric Resistance.  FR                                 533.05           12.25            0.02
                        C                           Induction................  BR                                 455.96           20.94            0.05
                        D                           Induction................  FR                                 522.06            7.14            0.01
Small.................  A                           Smooth_Electric            BL                                 230.78            1.67            0.01
                                                     Resistance.
                        B                           Coil_Electric Resistance.  FL                                 241.41            5.60            0.02
                        C                           Induction................  FL                                 247.44            3.67            0.02
                        D                           Induction................  BR                                 226.41            9.01            0.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table III.8--Proposed DOE Test Block Energy Consumption Repeatability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Average test
                             Cooking  top unit                                                                energy         Standard     Coefficient of
    Test load size              designation             Heating technology      Surface unit designation    consumption      deviation       variation
                                                                                                               (Wh)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large.................  A                           Smooth_Electric            FR                                  560.3           11.65            0.02
                                                     Resistance.
                        B                           Coil_Electric Resistance.  FR                                 456.77            6.49            0.01
                        C                           Induction................  BR                                 379.37            3.26            0.01
                        D                           Induction................  FR                                 453.27           12.58            0.03
Small.................  A                           Smooth_Electric            BL                                 225.84             8.1            0.04
                                                     Resistance.
                        B                           Coil_Electric Resistance.  FL                                  231.6           10.54            0.05
                        C                           Induction................  FL                                 226.95            3.48            0.02
                        D                           Induction................  BR                                 210.56            3.93            0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with testing in support of the January 2013 NOPR, DOE 
found that energy consumption using the IEC 60350-2 CD water-heating 
test method is not a more repeatable or reproducible metric than 
cooking efficiency for evaluating cooking top performance. The results 
based on energy consumption resulted in an average coefficient of 
variation 0.024 for the water-heating test method, which is similar to 
the average coefficient of variation for cooking top water-heating 
efficiency (0.022). Energy consumption as measured with the proposed 
DOE test block resulted in an average coefficient of variation of 0.025 
which is similar to the variation observed using the water-heating test 
method. In turn, these coefficients of variation are both higher than 
the average coefficient of variation for cooking efficiency using the 
hybrid test block (0.0125 on average for both test block sizes). DOE 
observed that a specific turndown setting would not always maintain the 
appropriate simmering temperature from test to test. Accordingly, 
adjustments to the turndown setting between tests were necessary to 
meet the simmering requirements. These differences in the turndown 
setting resulted in a wide range of measured energy consumptions. DOE 
noted that these differences in the reduced settings corresponded to 
varying amounts of water boiled or evaporated off during the test. 
Accordingly, DOE developed efficiency calculations that address this 
variation, which factor in: (a) The total temperature rise of the water 
to account for differences in simmering temperatures, and (b) the total 
amount of water lost to boiling or evaporation during the test by 
measuring the mass of the cookware plus water at the start and end of 
the test. However, even with these adjustments, the test results with 
DOE's water-heating efficiency calculations are still less repeatable 
than the hybrid block-heating tests. For these additional reasons, DOE 
continues to propose the block-heating test method using the hybrid 
test blocks.
3. Test Block Sizes
    AHAM and BSH noted that because induction coils do not reach full 
power unless the test block covers the entire surface unit, two test 
blocks might not be sufficient. According to AHAM and BSH, many use and 
care guides instruct consumers to match the pot or pan to the size of 
the coil. Therefore, AHAM and BSH stated that in order for an induction 
cooking top test procedure to be representative of actual consumer use, 
the test blocks must fully cover the surface unit. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at 
p. 4; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 4)
    DOE tested four electric surface units covering a range of 
diameters using both the 6.25-inch and 9-inch test blocks. The test 
results evaluated the effects of either oversizing (using the 9-inch 
test block on a smaller surface unit) or under-sizing (using the 6.25-
inch test block on a larger surface unit) the test block relative to 
the surface unit as shown in Table III.9.

                                 Table III.9--Difference in Efficiencies Measured With 9-Inch and 6.25-Inch Test Blocks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             6.25-inch
     Cooking  top unit                                                                     Surface unit        block       9-inch block      Measured
        designation               Heating technology          Surface unit designation       diameter        measured        measured       efficiency
                                                                                             (inches)     efficiency (%)  efficiency (%)  difference (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C..........................  Induction...................  FL                                          7           69.43           71.39            1.96
A..........................  Smooth_Electric Resistance..  BL                                          6           66.22           71.25            5.03
F \a\......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance..  FR                                         12           33.17           58.95           25.78

[[Page 71904]]

 
F \a\......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance..  BL                                          8           49.61           72.87           23.26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Cooking top F was added to the test sample to investigate block sizing but was not included in the repeatability results as it was not tested for
  the January 2013 NOPR.

    Results showed that for surface units with diameters up to 7 
inches, the difference in measured efficiency between the 9-inch test 
block and the 6.25-inch test block was on average less than 3.5 percent 
and within the typical test-to-test variation. However, for surface 
unit diameters exceeding the small test block diameter by 1.75 inches 
or more, differences in measured efficiency were on the order of 25 
percent. These results show that as the difference between test block 
diameter and surface unit diameter increases, an undersized test block 
would reduce measured cooking efficiency for surface units with larger 
diameters. The results do not show a similar effect for oversizing the 
test block. While it is not possible to undersize the test block on an 
induction surface unit because internal controls sense the cookware 
diameter to protect the unit from misuse, oversizing the test block 
does not greatly affect current generation in the base of the hybrid 
test block based on DOE testing, and resulted in similar measured 
efficiencies between the 6.25-inch and 9-inch block. For smooth cooking 
tops with electric resistance heating, when the test block is 
undersized, heat from the surface unit's heating element that exceeds 
the test block diameter is transferred to the ambient air. When 
oversized, the entire smooth heating element serves to heat the test 
block with only limited heat transfer back to the cooktop surface.
    Based on a review of the market, DOE found that electric cooking 
top surface unit diameters typically reach up to 12 inches. In 
determining an appropriate test block size for these larger surface 
units, DOE noted that the hybrid test block proposed for use with gas 
cooking tops with higher surface unit input rates, as described in 
section III.D.1 below, had the appropriate diameter to capture the 
range of large electric surface units in the residential market. 
Selecting this test block for use with large electric surface units 
would also minimize manufacturer burden because the two test blocks 
proposed for use with gas cooking tops could be used to test electric 
cooking tops. Table III.10 contains efficiencies measured with the 
10.5-inch test block for four surface units greater than 10 inches in 
diameter.

                                 Table III.10--Difference in Efficiencies Measured With 10.5-Inch and 9-Inch Test Blocks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             10.5-inch
     Cooking  top unit                                                                     Surface unit    9-inch block        block         Measured
        designation               Heating technology          Surface unit designation       diameter        measured        measured       efficiency
                                                                                             (inches)     efficiency (%)  efficiency (%)  difference (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..........................  Smooth_Electric Resistance..  FL                                         12           52.95           56.07            3.12
F \a\......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance..  FR                                         12           58.95           63.04            4.09
G \a\......................  Smooth_Electric Resistance..  FR                                         12           57.09           71.22           14.13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Cooking tops F and G were added to the test sample to investigate block sizing but were not included in the repeatability results as it was not
  tested for the January 2013 NOPR.

    Results indicated that efficiencies measured with the 10.5-inch 
test block are higher than those measured with the 9-inch test block. 
However, because the difference in size between the two blocks is less 
than the difference in size between the 6.25-inch and 9-inch test 
block, the efficiency increase is not as significant.
    Table III.11 lists the dimensions and thermal properties of the 
three proposed hybrid test blocks.

                                 Table III.11--Hybrid Test Block Specifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Specific heat
         Test block size          Block diameter   Block height    Block weight      (Btu/lb-      Heat capacity
                                     (inches)        (inches)      (pounds (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            0.20            1.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium Stainless Steel Base.....               9            0.25            4.28            0.11            0.47
Medium Aluminum Body............               9            2.72           16.85            0.23            3.87
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Medium Total................               9            2.97           21.13            0.21            4.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Stainless Steel Base......            10.5            0.25            6.09            0.11            0.67
Large Aluminum Body.............            10.5            3.48           29.39            0.23            6.76
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 71905]]

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

    DOE also investigated how test block size might affect surface unit 
power during the test to determine if surface unit input rate was 
dependent on test block diameter. By testing certain surface units with 
both the 6.25-inch and 9-inch test blocks, DOE was able to compare the 
average energy input rate and maximum power during the heat-up period 
(i.e., the period at the maximum setting) for the different block 
sizes. Table III.12 compares the average and maximum power during the 
heat-up period for the two current test block sizes on four surface 
units.

                                                 Table III.12--Energy Input Rate at the Maximum Setting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Surface unit                               Average power
    Cooking  top unit        Heating technology      Surface unit designation     diameter          Test block size           at  max      Maximum power
       designation                                                                (inches)                                 setting  (W)         (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.......................  Smooth_Electric           BL                                      6  6.25-inch................          1211.3            1344
                           Resistance.
A.......................  Smooth_Electric           BL                                      6  9-inch...................          1065.0          1317.6
                           Resistance.
A.......................  Smooth_Electric           FR                                      9  6.25-inch................          2894.6            3218
                           Resistance.
A.......................  Smooth_Electric           FR                                      9  9-inch...................          2644.2            3210
                           Resistance.
D*......................  Induction...............  BR                                      6  6.25-inch................          1878.5            2052
D*......................  Induction...............  BR                                      6  9-inch...................          1458.6            2105
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cooking Top D was tested with thermal grease, which is discussed further in section III.C.5, to determine a more representative maximum power level
  for induction cooking tops. For smooth_electric resistance cooking tops, based on DOE's testing, the maximum power level for the smooth cooking top
  was not affected by the presence of thermal grease.

    These test results show that for each surface unit tested, the 
average power during the heat-up period for the 6.25-inch test block is 
higher than for the 9-inch test block, even when the test block is 
significantly undersized. However, the maximum instantaneous power 
measured at the maximum setting on average shows no significant 
difference between the two test block sizes. Based on these results 
showing that both test block sizes allow surface units to reach the 
same maximum power, DOE determined that the proposed test block sizes 
are appropriate.
4. Non-Circular and Flexible Surface Units
    In the January 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed that for non-circular 
surface units, the appropriate test block size would be determined 
based on the surface unit's shortest dimension. 78 FR 6232, 6241 (Jan. 
30, 2103). AHAM asked whether DOE had conducted any testing on the non-
circular types of surface units or considered how different sizes of 
hybrid test blocks might impact the results. (AHAM, Public Meeting 
Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 41) AHAM and BSH also stated that while 
DOE's test block proposal would address rectangular or oval-shaped 
surface units, it would not address surface elements that are not 
clearly defined. According to these commenters, there is a current 
trend in the market to have flexible cooking zones--i.e., those that do 
not have clearly defined edges. AHAM and BSH requested that DOE develop 
a procedure that would allow units with flexible cooking zones to be 
accurately tested. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 6; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 6)
    Based on a review of products on the market, DOE is aware of full-
surface induction cooking tops with no clearly defined cooking zones. 
These cooking tops have multiple smaller inductors underneath the 
cooking top surface, which are fully or partially energized depending 
on the size of the cookware. Because the inductors are typically all 
the same size and distributed evenly across the cooking surface, DOE 
does not expect efficiency to vary significantly with location on the 
cooking surface. However, efficiency may vary with the different test 
block sizes. For these units with no clear surface unit markings, 
consumers may use any size cookware on the cooking top. To ensure 
testing covers the range of heating loads that may be used, DOE 
proposes that these full-surface cooking tops be tested with each of 
the proposed hybrid test block sizes (6.25-inch, 9-inch, and 10.5-inch 
diameters). Each test block would be tested separately by placing the 
block in the center of the usable induction surface and following the 
same proposed test method for testing individual surface units. The 
center of the usable induction surface may be offset from the geometric 
center of the cooking top because full-surface controls and displays 
may be embedded in the surface of the cooking top, reducing the usable 
induction surface available for cooking. DOE proposes that each test 
block would be centered so that it is equidistant from any boundaries 
of the usable induction surface, including boundaries due to the 
placement of the controls or display. The efficiency of the cooking top 
would be the average of the measured efficiencies using each of test 
blocks.
    DOE measured the efficiency of a single full-surface induction 
cooking top to evaluate the proposed test method. Table III.13 displays 
measured efficiency in the center of the cooking top as well as the 
standard deviation of four tests per test block, run at different 
positions on the cooking top (center, right of center, back left, and 
front left).

[[Page 71906]]



  Table III.13--Full-Surface Induction Cooking Top Measured Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Measured           Standard
                                    efficiency at the  deviation of off-
    Hybrid test block diameter        center of the          center
                                     cooking top (%)    measurements (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.25-inch.........................              65.84               1.85
9-inch............................              66.14               2.77
10.5-inch.........................              71.32               2.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changing test block position did not have a significant effect on 
measured efficiency, but the standard deviations resulting from 
changing position were higher than the standard deviations measured 
with a hybrid test block on a standard induction cooking top. 
Specifying test block position is necessary to ensure repeatability. 
Furthermore, the average efficiency, as measured with the three test 
blocks, is 67.77 percent.
    Many smooth--electric resistance cooking tops have ``multi-ring'' 
elements that have multiple concentric heating elements for a single 
surface unit. When a single ring is energized, this corresponds to the 
smallest diameter surface unit available. When two rings are energized, 
the diameter of the surface unit increases. This continues for as many 
concentric heating elements as are available for the surface unit. 
Multiple heating elements give the user flexibility to adjust the 
surface unit to fit a certain cookware size. Because each heating 
element can typically be controlled independently, DOE conducted tests 
on multi-ring elements to determine if the different control settings 
result in different measured efficiencies. Table III.14 lists the 
measured efficiencies for the multi-ring surface units on two smooth--
electric resistance cooking tops.

                                       Table III.14--Multi-Ring Smooth--Electric Resistance Cooking Top Efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Size of
  Cooking  top unit                               Surface unit        Surface unit     Number of rings        largest       Test block        Cooking
     designation        Heating technology         designation       size  (inches)       energized       energized ring  size  (inches)    efficiency
                                                                                                              (inches)                       (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................  Smooth_Electric        FR                                   9  Dual...............               9               9            67.7
                       Resistance.                                                   Single.............               6            6.25            59.2
F...................  Smooth_Electric        FR                                  12  Triple.............              12            10.5            71.9
                       Resistance.                                                   Dual...............               9               9            66.7
                                                                                     Single.............               6            6.25            57.8
F...................  Smooth_Electric        BL                                   8  Dual...............               8               9            72.9
                       Resistance.                                                   Single.............               5            6.25            62.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each of the multi-ring surface units, the largest-diameter 
setting (i.e., the setting using all available rings) resulted in the 
highest measured efficiencies. Each surface unit showed a significant 
decrease in efficiency at the smaller-diameter settings, up to 14.1 
percentage points. Because of the observed differences in efficiency at 
the different surface unit settings, DOE proposes that each distinct 
diameter setting for a multi-ring surface unit be tested as a separate 
surface unit. For example, if the surface unit has three settings with 
outer diameters of 12, 9, and 6 inches, each setting would be tested 
separately with the appropriately sized test block, and the results 
would be factored in to the overall cooking top efficiency calculation 
as if they were individual surface units.
    DOE is aware of other non-circular electric cooking top elements 
such as bridge zones, warming plates, grills and griddles that are not 
intended for use with a typical circular piece of cookware. Appropriate 
test blocks for these heating elements would depend on the intended 
function of each surface unit. DOE expects that specifying and 
requiring additional test blocks for these specific heating elements 
would place an unreasonable burden on test laboratories and 
manufacturers. Additionally DOE expects use of these types of surface 
units to be much less frequent than the standard surface units used for 
circular pots and pans. DOE notes that some gas cooking tops may also 
be equipped with warming plates, grills and griddles that are not 
intended solely for use with a typical piece of circular cookware. As a 
result, DOE is not proposing to require testing of gas warming plates, 
grills, and griddles in determining cooking top efficiency.
5. Improved Heat Transfer Within the Hybrid Test Block
    In response to the January 2013 NOPR, AHAM and BSH commented that 
the proposed description of test block construction was ambiguous and 
requested that construction be clearly defined so as to limit 
laboratory-to-laboratory variation in test results. AHAM and BSH also 
asked whether a bonding agent should be used to join the aluminum and 
stainless steel pieces or if test technicians should layer one piece on 
top of the other without bonding. Furthermore, AHAM and BSH asked 
whether DOE had performed testing to see whether adding a bonding agent 
led to more repeatable and reproducible results. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 
3; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 3)
    In addition to questions regarding the construction of the test 
block, AHAM and BSH asked whether DOE had examined the heat transfer 
between the stainless steel base and aluminum body of the hybrid test 
block. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 27; AHAM, TP 
No. 7 at pp. 2, 4; BSH, TP No. 8 at pp. 2, 4) During recent 
manufacturer interviews conducted as part of a separate rulemaking to 
consider amended energy conservation standards for conventional cooking 
products, manufacturers stated that any small imperfections in the 
contacting surfaces of the hybrid test block, due to warping or 
machining, leave an air gap between the base and body of the hybrid 
test block which may result in poor thermal contact between the two 
layers.

[[Page 71907]]

According to manufacturers, the proposed test block construction may 
not produce test results that are typical of consumer use (e.g., 
boiling water).
    For the January 2013 NOPR, the aluminum body and stainless steel 
base of the hybrid test blocks were machined from extruded bar stock, 
and the aluminum body was placed on top of the stainless steel base for 
each test. No bonding agent was used to join the base and body of the 
hybrid blocks because DOE observed that the weight and resulting 
friction kept the aluminum body firmly fixed to the base throughout the 
duration of the test. However, because stakeholders expressed concern 
over the thermal contact between the stainless steel base and aluminum 
body, DOE investigated the effect of applying a layer of thermal grease 
between the two pieces. Thermal grease is not a permanent bonding 
agent, but its high viscosity and thermal conductivity ensures good 
contact between the base and body of the hybrid test block, filling any 
surface imperfections.
    DOE liberally applied a layer of silver-based thermal grease to the 
stainless steel base, using the aluminum body to apply pressure and 
spread the grease evenly across the surface of the base until there was 
complete coverage of the contacting surface of each piece. The thermal 
conductivity of the selected grease was approximately 1.73 Btu/hr-ft-
[deg]F (1.0 W/m-K).
    Figure III.2 shows the initial temperature rise of the hybrid test 
block on an induction surface unit both with and without thermal grease 
when tested according to Appendix I. As noted above, Appendix I 
requires that the surface unit be set to its maximum power setting 
during the initial temperature rise. Once the test block temperature 
reaches 144 [deg]F above the starting temperature, the control power 
setting is turned down. The turndown is reflected in the figure as a 
change in the rate of temperature increase.\11\ Figure III.2 also 
includes the temperature rise of a boiling water load for comparison. 
All three tests were performed on the 6-inch diameter back right 
induction surface unit of cooking top D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The full turndown period is not shown in the Figure III.2. 
Only the beginning portion of the test cycle is shown to highlight 
the temperature profile for the heat-up phase of the test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.002

    The rate of temperature increase during the initial temperature 
rise of the hybrid test block changes significantly with the addition 
of thermal grease and closely resembles the initial temperature rise of 
the water load as shown in Figure III.2. This change suggests that by 
adding thermal grease, the hybrid test block method may be more 
representative of actual cooking top usage than the test block without 
thermal grease. DOE observed similar changes in the rate of temperature 
increase for larger test block sizes and for all types of cooking tops.
    DOE investigated the impact on measured efficiency and 
repeatability of varying the quantity of thermal grease as well as 
varying the application technique. An example application technique 
included applying the grease in an ``X'' shape near the center of the 
stainless steel base and applying pressure with the aluminum body to 
spread the grease evenly across the base. Alternate techniques included 
applying the grease in a line and spreading the

[[Page 71908]]

grease with a spackling knife. Table III.15 contains the average 
efficiency and standard deviation for multiple runs with each 
application technique. Regardless of the application technique or 
grease quantity, thick, even application of the grease yielded similar 
results. Nineteen investigative thermal grease tests performed on a 
single induction surface unit, 6 inches in diameter, resulted in an 
overall standard deviation of 1.43%.

         Table III.15--Effect of Variation in Thermal Grease Application on Efficiency for Cooking Top D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of        Average        Standard
                        Application type                             tests per      efficiency       deviation
                                                                    application      (percent)       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-shape, 12 grams (g)...........................................               3           70.90            0.75
Spread evenly with spackling knife, 7g..........................               2           68.94            1.05
X-shape, 10g....................................................               3           68.93            0.08
Spread evenly with spackling knife, 12g.........................               6           69.99            0.57
Spread evenly with spackling knife, 10g.........................               5           71.67            0.08
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Average for all runs........................................              19           70.30            1.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After conducting these tests, DOE separated the hybrid test block 
pieces and observed that the amount of thermal grease listed in Table 
III.16 produced an even layer that fully covered the surface between 
the test blocks. After six tests with a test block, DOE also noted that 
the thermal grease had dried out and had to be removed and replaced.

   Table III.16--Thermal Grease Quantity Required for Even Test Block
                                Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Hybrid test block diameter (inches)    Quantity of thermal grease (g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.25....................................  10-12
9.......................................  20-25
10.5....................................  28-34
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, DOE proposes to amend Appendix I 
to require, in addition to the hybrid test block configuration proposed 
in the January 2013 NOPR, that a layer of thermal grease be applied to 
evenly cover the surface between the stainless steel base and the 
aluminum body of the hybrid test block for all test block sizes. The 
amount of thermal grease applied would be dependent on the test block 
diameter, according to the quantities listed in Table III.16. The 
thermal grease would be required to have a thermal conductivity of at 
least 1.73 Btu/hr-ft-[deg]F (1.0 W/m-K). DOE also proposes to require 
the use of this modified hybrid test block for all conventional cooking 
tops and for the cooking top component of all conventional ranges. This 
will allow measured efficiency to be comparable across product classes 
and will also reduce manufacturer burden by not requiring additional 
test block configurations.
6. Expected Cooking Top Performance
    AHAM and BSH commented that the test block method in general may 
not be representative of actual consumer use, especially for induction 
technology. AHAM and BSH requested that DOE consider the amount of time 
consumers typically spend cooking a food load to capture any potential 
energy efficiency benefits to induction technology in the short term 
(e.g., heating-up phase of cooking) that might even out across 
technologies as cooking time increases (e.g., simmering). According to 
AHAM and BSH, energy use and efficiency for cooking products is a 
function of a consumer's individual cooking behavior, and consumer use 
of cooking products varies from person to person. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 
2; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 2)
    As discussed in section III.C.5, comparing the initial temperature 
rise of the hybrid test block with thermal grease to the initial 
temperature rise of water suggests that the test block method is 
representative of real-world cooking vessel heating. The initial heat-
up period at the maximum energy input rate setting as specified in 
Appendix I is determined based on test block temperature, not a 
specified time, so if a certain technology achieves the initial 
temperature rise more quickly (e.g., with less energy to reach that 
state,) the test procedure would reflect that in a higher cooking 
efficiency. To examine performance of the heat-up period independent of 
the simmering period, DOE calculated surface unit efficiency for only 
the initial temperature rise of 144[emsp14][deg]F. Due to changes in 
product availability over the course of the testing performed for the 
SNOPR, DOE selected additional cooking tops to evaluate with the 
thermal grease. Table III.17 provides an updated list of tested surface 
units for this investigation.

                      Table III.17--Cooking Top Surface Units Evaluated With Thermal Grease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Surface unit    Surface unit
    Cooking  top unit          Heating technology      Surface unit designation      diameter        max rated
       designation                                                                   (inches)        power (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D........................  Induction................  FR                                      11            3700
D........................  Induction................  BR                                       6            1800
F........................  Smooth_Electric            FR                                      12            3000
                            Resistance.
F........................  Smooth_Electric            BR                                       6            1200
                            Resistance.
G........................  Smooth_Electric            FR                                      12            3000
                            Resistance.
G........................  Smooth_Electric            BL                                       6            1200
                            Resistance.
H........................  Induction................  FR                                      10            3400
H........................  Induction................  BL                                       8            3200
H........................  Induction................  FL                                       7            2600
I........................  Coil_Electric Resistance.  BR                                       6            1250
I........................  Coil_Electric Resistance.  FL                                       8            2100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 71909]]

    Table III.18 disaggregates the results from the testing discussed 
in section III.C.5 to show the average surface unit performance during 
the initial heat-up period.

                                                   Table III.18--Hybrid Test Block Heat-Up Efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Full test     Heat up
           Test block size                 Cooking  top unit        Heating technology          Surface unit        efficiency   efficiency    Heat up
                                              designation                                       designation         (percent)    (percent)    time (min)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.5-inch Hybrid Test Block..........  D                         Induction..............  FR                             78.18        77.34         6.33
                                       G                         Smooth_Electric          FR                             72.95        66.12         8.97
                                                                  Resistance.
                                       H                         Induction..............  FR                             69.79        67.48         8.00
9-inch Hybrid Test Block.............  H                         Induction..............  BL                             73.78        68.20         5.05
                                       I                         Coil_Electric            FR                             68.86        64.82         8.06
                                                                  Resistance.
6.25-inch Hybrid Test Block..........  D                         Induction..............  BR                             69.99        72.30         3.67
                                       G                         Smooth_Electric          BL                             66.94        61.17         6.37
                                                                  Resistance.
                                       H                         Induction..............  FL                             69.38        65.61         2.97
                                       I                         Coil_Electric            BR                             73.54        70.60         5.43
                                                                  Resistance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table III.18 shows that for all test block sizes, the measured 
efficiency during the heat-up period is generally higher for the 
induction surface units than for the coil--electric resistance, 
smooth--electric resistance, and gas surface units. Induction surface 
units also had the shortest heat-up times for each of the test block 
sizes. Differentiation in efficiency between cooking top types 
decreases when examining the full test efficiency suggesting that while 
the test procedure captures the efficiency increase of induction during 
the initial heat up, induction cooking tops may be less efficient 
during simmering. Additionally, DOE is not aware of any data showing 
that consumers use induction cooking tops differently than conventional 
cooking tops to cook the same food load. Thus, DOE determined that the 
proposed test procedure, which measures cooking efficiency over an 
entire cooking process including heat-up and simmering periods, would 
be appropriate for all of the proposed covered product types.
    AHAM and BSH commented that the test results presented in the 
January 2013 NOPR did not correspond with DOE's former conclusions 
regarding the efficiency of induction elements as discussed in Chapter 
3 of the December 2009 Technical Support Document for residential 
dishwashers, dehumidifiers, cooking products, and commercial clothes 
washers, which found a cooking efficiency of 84 percent. Docket No. 
EERE-2006-STD-0127 (Dec. 2009). AHAM and BSH suggested that one reason 
why the efficiencies presented in the January 2013 NOPR might not match 
this earlier figure may be that the proposed test block procedure does 
not accurately capture induction element efficiency and requested an 
explanation for the difference. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 3; BSH, TP No. 8 
at p. 3)
    The 84-percent efficiency listed for induction cooking tops in the 
December 2009 Technical Support Document was referenced from an 
external test study.\12\ DOE notes that although the efficiencies 
presented in the January 2013 NOPR and in the SNOPR do not match the 
values determined in the external study for induction surface units, 
the study used a similar block-heating procedure. The study tested 
induction and other cooking tops using a 9-inch carbon steel test block 
with specifications similar to those used for the carbon steel test 
block testing conducted in support of the January 2013 NOPR. 78 FR 
6232, 6237 (Jan. 30, 2013). The discrepancy in results between DOE's 
investigative testing and that of the external study is therefore not 
due to the proposed test block procedure. Based on the consistency of 
its test data from two test laboratories, DOE determined that the 
proposed test block-heating test procedure accurately reflects 
induction surface unit heating efficiencies. 78 FR 6232, 6237-40 (Jan. 
30, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ K.C. Datwyler and J.R. McFadden. 1992. ``A Comparative 
Analysis of Performance Characteristics of Gas and Electric 
Cooktops.'' Proceedings of the 43rd Annual International Appliance 
Technical Conference, West Lafayette, IN, May, 1992, pp 485-496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) asked whether the 
DOE test results show a relative increase in efficiency for induction 
compared to electric resistance cooking tops. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 30) Based on the proposed hybrid test block 
results in the SNOPR, the tested induction surface units have an 
average efficiency of 72.2 percent, which is not significantly higher 
than the 69.9 average efficiency of smooth--electric resistance surface 
units or the 71.2-percent average electric coil surface unit 
efficiency.
    ASAP also asked whether the efficiency results measured with the 
hybrid test block serve as a good predictor of efficiency compared to 
measurements made by the water-heating test in terms of the relative 
ranking of units. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, TP No. 5 at p. 38) 
Table III.19 provides a ranking of selected cooking top surface units 
by efficiency for each test method.

                                  Table III.19--Hybrid Test Block and Water-Load Ranking of Surface Units by Efficiency
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Rank                10.5-inch hybrid
                          Large water load
                          6.25-inch hybrid
                          Small water load
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............  I_Electric Coil *.....     70.89%  I_Electric Coil......     85.54%  I_Electric Coil......     73.54%  H_Induction..........     87.47%
2..............  D_Induction...........     73.59%  H_Induction..........     85.05%  D_Induction..........     69.99%  D_Induction..........     78.49%
3..............  H_Induction...........     70.74%  D_Induction..........     80.45%  H_Induction..........     69.38%  I_Electric Coil......     76.80%
4..............  F_Smooth..............     69.69%  F_Smooth.............     79.65%  F_Smooth.............     64.06%  F_Smooth.............     74.87%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Test performed with the 9-inch hybrid test block.


[[Page 71910]]

    The efficiency results in Table III.19 show that the hybrid test 
blocks resulted in a more consistent efficiency ranking for the 
different test block sizes as compared to the water heating test. 
Although different-sized surface units may have different cooking 
efficiencies, DOE expects that surface units within the same cooking 
top using the same heating technology would have similar cooking 
efficiencies, as observed in the hybrid test block results. The water-
heating tests resulted in inconsistent rankings and efficiencies 
between the two test load sizes The higher test-to-test variability 
observed from these water heating tests could be one cause for the 
differences in efficiency rankings compared to the hybrid test block 
results.
    Based on the further investigation of the test results in support 
of the SNOPR, as discussed above, DOE preliminarily concludes that the 
proposed test method using hybrid test blocks with thermal grease 
accurately reflects the performance of covered cooking tops.
7. Clarification of the Reduced Energy Input Setting
    AHAM and BSH commented that it would be difficult to determine the 
turndown setting of the surface unit (25  5 percent of the 
maximum energy input rate) when using the proposed test block method. 
According to these commenters, preliminary testing or trial-and-error 
may be required to determine the appropriate turndown setting. (AHAM, 
TP No. 7 at p. 5; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 5)
    DOE agrees that a set of preliminary tests are required to 
determine the correct turndown setting. However, DOE understands that 
the current test procedure already requires preliminary tests to 
determine the turndown setting because the power level for each control 
setting of a given surface unit may not be explicitly stated and may 
not correspond to an exact percentage of the total power. As a result, 
this requirement does not increase burden. DOE notes that the 
preliminary tests to determine appropriate reduced settings are not 
unique to block-heating tests; the IEC 60350-2 CD procedure requires an 
initial test to determine when the control setting shall be reduced 
based on temperature of the water. Test technicians may limit the 
burden associated with determining the correct setting by using the 
manufacturer's power rating of the surface unit to make an initial 
guess at the turndown setting and then making adjustments to the 
selected setting so that in subsequent tests, the turndown setting 
corresponds to the 25  5 percent requirement.
    Additionally, AHAM and BSH commented that each cooking top has a 
different maximum energy input rate per surface unit depending on the 
manufacturer, and the power at the turndown setting can differ 
significantly between cooking tops. AHAM and BSH noted that while a 
cooking top requiring a higher power to maintain the 25 percent of the 
maximum energy input rate during the 15-minute reduced setting period 
might suggest higher energy losses to the room's ambient air, a higher 
maximum energy input rate does not necessarily mean that the cooking 
top is less efficient. AHAM and BSH suggested that a better approach is 
to control the steady-state temperature of the block, as is done for 
the water in the IEC water-heating method, instead of the power level. 
(AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 5; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 5)
    Although surface units with higher power ratings would be expected 
to reach higher maximum temperatures throughout testing, Figure III.1 
in section III.C.1 shows that power rating and maximum test block 
temperature are not necessarily correlated. Both test block sizes and a 
range of surface unit rated powers all resulted in similar maximum 
temperatures. DOE also notes that requiring a constant test block 
temperature at the reduced setting would likely result in even greater 
test burden in determining the reduced control setting. If the energy 
into the test block did not exactly equal losses to the ambient air, 
the test block would continue to heat up or cool down at the reduced 
setting. Finding the appropriate setting to maintain the test block 
temperature within a reasonable tolerance would likely require more 
trial-and-error tests than determining the current reduced setting at 
25  5 percent of the maximum energy input rate. For these 
reasons, DOE proposes to maintain its test block-heating procedure 
requiring a reduced setting at 25  5 percent of the test 
unit's maximum energy input rate.
    DOE also notes that the test procedure does not currently specify 
the period over which the maximum energy input rate is determined; it 
could be an instantaneous energy input rate measurement or the average 
energy consumption rate determined over the entire period at the 
maximum setting. DOE has observed that the instantaneous maximum energy 
input rate for electric units may vary from test to test based on 
instantaneous supply voltage. A spike in voltage within the allowable 
tolerance at the maximum setting could result in testing at a higher 
reduced setting, impacting test-to-test repeatability. DOE also notes 
that at the reduced setting, electric resistance heating elements 
typically cycle off and on, which results in lower average energy input 
rates over the entire period compared to the maximum setting, but 
similar instantaneous energy input rates when the heating element is 
energized. To improve test-to-test repeatability, and to better reflect 
typical cooking top operation, DOE is proposing to clarify in section 
3.1.2 of Appendix I that the maximum energy input rate be determined as 
the total energy consumed at the maximum setting divided by the time 
operated at the maximum setting. Similarly, DOE is proposing to clarify 
that the energy input rate at the reduced setting be calculated as the 
total energy consumed at the reduced setting divided by the time 
operated at the reduced setting; this value shall be 25  5 
percent of the maximum energy input rate.

D. Gas Cooking Products With High Input Rates

    As discussed in section I.B, as part of the February 2014 RFI, DOE 
stated that it tentatively plans to consider energy conservation 
standards for all consumer conventional cooking products, including 
commercial-style gas cooking products and standard surface units with 
higher input rates. 79 FR 8337, 8340 (Feb. 12, 2014).
    The test procedure for gas cooking tops is currently based on 
measuring temperature rise in an aluminum block with a single diameter 
for all burner input rates. In the previous energy conservation 
standards rulemaking, DOE concluded that the diameter of the test block 
is sufficient to measure consumer cooking top burners with high input 
rates. For cooking tops that may have high input rate burners with 
larger diameters to accomplish complete combustion, however, DOE noted 
that this test block diameter may be too small to achieve proper heat 
transfer and may not be representative of the dimensions of suitable 
cookware. DOE further stated that it was not aware of any data to 
determine the measurement of energy efficiency or energy efficiency 
characteristics for those products. 72 FR 64432, 64444 (Nov. 15, 2007).
    DOE also noted in its previous rulemaking that the test procedure 
may not adequately measure performance of gas ovens with high input 
rates. DOE stated that the single oven test block may not adequately 
measure the temperature distribution that is inherent with the larger 
cavity volumes and higher input rates typically found in these 
products. DOE stated that it was not aware of any data upon which to 
determine the measurement of energy

[[Page 71911]]

efficiency or energy efficiency characteristics for gas ovens with high 
input rates. 72 FR 64432, 64445 (Nov. 15, 2007).
    Because DOE is tentatively planning to consider energy conservation 
standards for all consumer gas cooking products and has observed 
performance differences between standard gas surface units and units 
with higher input rates, DOE evaluated the appropriateness of the 
existing test methods in Appendix I for use with these high input rate 
products and is proposing to amend test methods for measuring the 
energy consumption of such gas surface units in this SNOPR. These 
amendments would apply to all consumer cooking tops with high input 
rate surface units, including those marketed as commercial-style. 
Additionally, DOE determined that the existing test methods in Appendix 
I are appropriate for testing ovens with high input rates, including 
gas ovens marketed as commercial-style. The proposed amendments are 
discussed in the following sections.
1. Surface Units With Input Rates Greater Than 14,000 Btu/h
    In a response to the February 2014 RFI, Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, 
and Southern California Edison (hereinafter referred to as the 
California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs)) suggested that DOE consider 
ASTM F1521-12--``Standard Test Method for Performance of Range Tops'' 
when developing a test procedure for ``commercial-style'' cooking tops 
or standard consumer gas cooking tops with higher burner input rates. 
The California IOUs stated that they believe the ASTM test procedure is 
applicable for higher burner input rates because the energy input rate 
of the equipment does not significantly impact the measured cooking 
energy efficiency under this test procedure. (California IOUs, STD No. 
11 at p. 2).\13\ Additionally, Whirlpool stated that the current test 
block in Appendix I would not be appropriate for large burners with 
high burner input rates, as the diameter of the burner flame would be 
larger than the diameter of the 9-inch test block. Whirlpool also 
stated that for safety and energy efficiency reasons, consumers are 
instructed to match the pot size to the burner. (Whirlpool, STD No. 13 
at p. 2) Both AHAM and Whirlpool commented that a test procedure should 
be developed to address commercial-style cooking products if DOE plans 
to evaluate them in a standards analysis. (AHAM, STD No. 9 at p. 2; 
Whirlpool, STD No. 13 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A notation in this form provides a reference for 
information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for residential conventional cooking 
products (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005), which is maintained in 
the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. This 
notation identifies a written comment: (1) Made by Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and 
Electric, and Southern California Edison (the California Investor 
Owned Utilities (IOUs)); (2) recorded in document number 11 in the 
docket for the residential conventional cooking products energy 
conservation standards rulemaking; and (3) which appears at page 2 
of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ASTM F1521-12 test method for commercial cooking tops, 
suggested for use by the California IOUs, is similar to the IEC 60350-2 
CD test method DOE considered in the January 2013 NOPR. The primary 
difference between the ASTM and IEC test methods is that the ASTM 
method only includes measurement at the full-energy input rate of the 
surface unit while the IEC water heating method also includes 
measurement during a simmering period at a calculated turndown 
temperature. In addition, ASTM F1521-12 specifies a water load that is 
approximately two times heavier than the largest test load specified in 
IEC 60350-2 CD. Based on DOE's evaluation of the IEC water heating test 
method for cooking tops as discussed in section III.C.2, DOE is not 
considering a water-heating test method for gas surface units with 
higher input rates because this test method has been shown to be less 
repeatable and reproducible than DOE's proposed hybrid test block test 
method.
    In a review of consumer gas cooking products on the market, DOE 
found that the majority of surface units on cooking tops or ranges 
marketed as commercial-style were rated higher than 14,000 Btu/h. 
Typical ratings for commercial-style gas surface units ranged from 
15,000 Btu/h to 30,000 Btu/h. Conversely, the majority of surface units 
on standard gas cooking tops or ranges were rated below 14,000 Btu/h. 
However, many of the surveyed standard gas cooking tops and ranges had 
a single surface unit rated at a higher input rate (i.e., above 14,000 
Btu/h) to be used for rapid boiling or cooking of a larger food load. 
DOE also noted that manufacturer product literature for all gas cooking 
tops and ranges reviewed specifies that the surface unit gas flame be 
adjusted to the size of the pot or pan.
    Considering these factors, DOE decided to evaluate the effects of 
different test block sizes on the efficiency and combustion completion 
of surface units with high input rates using the test methods and 
hybrid test block configuration described in section III.C. Table 
III.20 lists the diameters, heights, weights, and heat capacities of 
the four hybrid test block sizes DOE considered for this testing. DOE 
evaluated the surface units with the proposed 9-inch test block as 
described in section III.C.3 and derived the larger investigative test 
block dimensions and heat capacities from the range of larger-sized 
cookware specified in IEC 60350-2 CD. The test block diameters were 
those specified in IEC 60350-2 CD, and the heights of the test blocks 
were calculated so that the overall heat capacities matched those of 
the water loads.

   Table III.20--Hybrid Test Block Sizes Investigated for Gas Cooking Tops With High Surface Unit Input Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Specific heat
      Test block component           Diameter         Height       Weight (lbs)      (Btu/lb-      Heat capacity
                                     (inches)        (inches)                         [deg]F)      (Btu/ [deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steel Base............               9            0.25            4.28            0.11            0.47
Aluminum Body...................               9            2.72           16.85            0.23            3.87
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................               9            2.97           21.13            0.21            4.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steel Base............            10.6            0.25            6.21            0.11            0.65
Aluminum Body...................            10.6            3.48           29.95            0.23            6.89
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................            10.6            3.73           36.16            0.21            7.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steel Base............            11.8            0.25            7.90            0.11            0.87

[[Page 71912]]

 
Aluminum Body...................            11.8            3.49           37.13            0.23            8.54
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................            11.8            3.74           45.03            0.21            9.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steel Base............              13            0.25            9.27            0.11            1.02
Aluminum Body...................              13            3.48           45.04            0.23           10.36
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................              13            3.73           54.31            0.21           11.38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To select the appropriate block diameter for testing gas surface 
units with higher input rates, DOE evaluated cooking efficiency and the 
carbon monoxide (CO) emitted during the heating-up period of the test 
(i.e., when the surface unit was set to its maximum setting). A high 
concentration of CO would indicate incomplete combustion and suggest 
that the test block was improperly sized. DOE also evaluated the 
quality \14\ of the flame, the size of the flame in relation to the 
test block, and the degree to which the flames impinged on the block in 
order to determine the appropriate test block size for gas surface 
units with high input rates. DOE conducted testing on the highest-rated 
surface unit for four commercial-style gas cooking tops and one 
standard gas cooking top with a single higher-input rate surface unit. 
The cooking efficiency was measured using the same proposed test method 
described in section III.C, but with the test block sizes listed in 
Table III.20. The CO sample was collected using the test method 
specified in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 
Z21.1-2010, ``Household Cooking Gas Appliances'' (ANSI Z21.1-2010), 
which measures the percent of CO in an air-free sample. The CO sample 
was measured at 5 minutes after the surface unit was first set at its 
maximum setting and loaded with the relevant test block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Flame quality refers to the shape of the flame, its 
sharpness, and its color. Mostly yellow, soft, flickering flame tips 
may indicate insufficient secondary air and incomplete combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this testing, DOE initially eliminated the 13-inch test 
block from consideration because the block overhung the grates of the 
tested units and significantly limited secondary airflow to the burner 
ports. As a result, DOE focused its investigation on cooking efficiency 
and CO emissions for the 9-inch, 10.6-inch and 11.8-inch test blocks. 
Figure III.3 shows measured cooking efficiency and Figure III.4 shows 
the measured CO emissions during the initial heating phase of the test 
for each gas surface unit tested.

[[Page 71913]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.003


[[Page 71914]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.004

    The test results demonstrate that efficiency alone is not a good 
indicator of the suitability of a test block for a given gas surface 
unit input rate, as efficiency increases consistently with increasing 
test block size. However, the low efficiency measured with the 9-inch 
test block for each surface unit also suggests that surface units with 
high input rates are designed to be used with cookware of a larger 
diameter when at the maximum setting. For two of the sealed surface 
units, during tests with the 9-inch test block, flames impinged on the 
sides of the test block when the surface unit was set at the maximum 
setting. According to the user manuals, the setting should be adjusted 
so that the flame only impinges on the bottom of the test block.
    CO levels also generally increased with increasing test block 
diameter, suggesting that the 11.8-inch test block was not 
representative of a food load designed to be used with cooking tops 
having surface units with higher input rates. The maximum concentration 
of carbon monoxide allowed by ANSI Z21.1-2010 is 0.08 percent in an 
air-free sample. One cooking top exhibited lower CO levels with the 
11.8-inch block, but this is likely related to the low profile and 
configuration of the particular cooking top's grates. Considering the 
efficiency results, CO emissions, and flame characteristics, as 
discussed above, DOE concluded that the 10.6-inch test block was most 
representative of a food load designed to be used with a high input 
rate surface unit.
    DOE also examined the typical diameters of cookware items that are 
compatible with use on higher input rate gas burners. These cookware 
items are generally higher-cost products designed with thicker gauge 
material and often heavier-duty disk bases to prevent scorching. Based 
on DOE's review of 100 ``premium'' cookware diameters currently 
available on the market, the average diameter is between 10 and 11 
inches. Because a 10.5-inch diameter is a standard size in the United 
States, DOE decided to reduce the 10.6-inch test block diameter to 10.5 
inches.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Measured cooking efficiencies with the 10.5-inch test block 
were, on average, 0.78 percentage points less than efficiencies 
measured with the 10.6-inch test block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, DOE is proposing to amend sections 
2.7 and 3.1.2 of Appendix I in the SNOPR to require a 10.5-inch hybrid 
test block, with the dimensions and heat capacities listed in Table 
III.21, for use with gas surface units having burner input rates 
greater than 14,000 Btu/h. Although DOE's investigative testing was 
performed without the use of thermal grease, DOE is also proposing to 
amend Appendix I to require the use of thermal grease with the hybrid 
test block for all cooking top product classes, including gas. 
Preliminary tests conducted by DOE suggest that measured efficiency for 
gas cooking products will not significantly change with the addition of 
thermal grease.

[[Page 71915]]



            Table III.21--Proposed Test Block Parameters for Gas Surface Units With High Input Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Specific heat
      Test block component           Diameter         Height       Weight (lbs)      (Btu/lb-      Heat capacity
                                     (inches)        (inches)                         [deg]F)      (Btu/ [deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steel Base............            10.5            0.25            6.09            0.11            0.67
Aluminum Body...................            10.5            3.48           29.39            0.23            6.76
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................            10.5            3.73           35.48            0.21            7.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Gas Ovens With Input Rates Greater Than 22,500 Btu/h
    The current active mode test procedure for conventional ovens 
involves setting the temperature control for the normal baking cooking 
cycle such that the temperature inside the oven is 325  5 
[deg]F higher than the room ambient air temperature (77  9 
[deg]F). An 8.5 pound (6.25-inch diameter) cylindrical anodized 
aluminum test block is then heated in the oven from ambient room air 
temperature  4 [deg]F until the test block temperature has 
increased 234 [deg]F above its initial temperature. If an oven permits 
baking by either forced convection by using a fan, or without forced 
convection, the oven is tested using the procedure described above in 
each of those two cooking modes. After the baking test(s), if the oven 
is equipped with a self-cleaning function, the oven is additionally set 
for the self-cleaning process in accordance with manufacturer's 
instruction and allowed to run until completion. The measured energy 
consumption during these test cycles is used to calculate the cooking 
efficiency and energy factor.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For ovens that can be operated with or without forced 
convection, the average of the energy consumption for these two 
modes is used. For self-clean mode, the test procedure in Appendix I 
assumes an average of 4 self-cleaning operations per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the February 2014 RFI, the California IOUs 
recommended that DOE refer to ASTM F1496-13, ``Standard Test Method for 
Performance of Convection Ovens'' when developing a test procedure for 
commercial-style gas ovens or standard gas ovens with higher input 
rates. California IOUs stated that this test method is applicable to 
half-size commercial convection ovens. According to the California 
IOUs, a half-size commercial convection oven may be similar to a 
standard, consumer gas oven with a higher burner input rate. 
(California IOUs, STD No. 11 at p. 2)
    The ASTM F1496-13 test method for convection ovens involves 
calibrating the temperature control for the normal bake cooking cycle 
such that the average temperature inside the oven is 350  5 
[deg]F. Once the oven is preheated, the energy consumption to heat a 
test load to 205 [deg]F is recorded and used to calculate a cooking 
efficiency. DOE noted that the test load specified in ASTM F1496-13 
consists of a food-based test load (potatoes) that varies with oven 
capacity. The number of pans of potatoes could potentially increase or 
decrease depending on the number of racks and thus, capacity of the 
oven. For half-size commercial convection ovens, ASTM F1496-13 requires 
a smaller pan and fewer potatoes. DOE notes that potatoes and other 
food loads may be produced in different geographical regions and in 
different conditions, such as climate, growing conditions (i.e., soil 
conditions, watering frequency, harvesting time, etc.) that may vary 
throughout the growing seasons even within specific geographic regions. 
DOE tentatively concludes, therefore, that a food-based test load would 
not produce repeatable and reproducible test results. As a result, DOE 
is not considering incorporating test methods based on ASTM F1496-13.
    In a review of the consumer gas ovens available on the U.S. market, 
DOE observed that standard gas ovens typically have an input rate of 
16,000 to 18,000 Btu/h. Gas ovens marketed as commercial-style 
typically have input rates ranging from 22,500 to 30,000 Btu/h.\17\ 
Additional review of both the standard and commercial-style gas oven 
cavities indicated that there is significant overlap in oven cavity 
volume between the two oven types. Standard (single) gas oven cavities 
ranged from 2.5 to 5.6 cubic feet and commercial-style gas oven 
(single) cavities ranged from 3.0 to 6.0 cubic feet. Sixty percent of 
the commercial-style models surveyed had cavity volumes between 4.0 and 
5.0 cubic feet while fifty percent of the standard models had cavity 
volumes between 4.0 and 5.0 cubic feet. The primary differentiating 
factor between the two oven types was burner input rate, which is 
greater than 22,500 Btu/h for commercial-style gas ovens. In order to 
develop an appropriate test block size for gas ovens with higher input 
rates, DOE investigated the effect of increasing oven test block size 
on oven cooking efficiency. DOE sought to determine whether a larger 
test block might be more representative of the type of loads used with 
gas ovens with higher input rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ However, DOE noted that many gas ranges, while marketed as 
commercial- or professional-style and having multiple surface units 
with high input rates, did not have a gas oven with a high input 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluated two test block sizes for use with the high input rate 
gas ovens: The 6.25-inch aluminum test block used in the existing DOE 
test procedure and a 9-inch diameter aluminum test block, approximately 
3 inches high and weighing 19 pounds. Each test block was finished with 
an anodic black coating with a minimum thickness of 0.001 inch, as 
specified in the existing DOE test procedure in Appendix I. DOE 
selected three gas ovens marketed as commercial-style for testing as 
well as a standard gas oven for comparison. Each oven was tested twice, 
once with the 6.25-inch test block and once with the 9-inch test block 
using the test methods specified in the existing DOE test procedure. 
The resulting cooking efficiencies are presented in Table III.22.

[[Page 71916]]



                                         Table III.22--Gas Oven Cooking Efficiency for Multiple Test Block Sizes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          6.25-inch test    9-inch test
                                                            Input rate                     Cavity volume      block--         block--        Ratio of
                          Type                                (Btu/h)     Width (inches)   (cubic feet)       cooking         cooking      efficiencies
                                                                                                          efficiency (%)  efficiency (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial-Style Oven A.................................           28000              36             5.3             4.3             8.1            1.86
Commercial-Style Oven B.................................           30000              36             5.4             3.9             7.7            1.98
Commercial-Style Oven C.................................           23500              30             4.4             5.2             9.5            1.85
Standard................................................           18000              30               5             7.6            14.1            1.87
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While cooking efficiency did increase with the larger test block, 
it scaled by approximately the same factor (1.9) regardless of input 
rate or capacity, or whether the oven was marketed as commercial-style. 
The relatively low cooking efficiencies for ovens indicate that the 
thermal energy required to heat the test block is only a small 
percentage of the overall energy input to the oven. Other thermal 
losses in the cavity are large enough that they account for much of the 
additional oven energy input and are not greatly affected by test block 
size. Thus, cooking efficiency measured with the larger test block also 
scales relatively closely with the test block heat capacity. The ratio 
of the heat capacity of the 9-inch test block to the 6.25-inch test 
block is 2.2. To minimize the burden of purchasing new test blocks, DOE 
proposes to use the 6.25-inch test block specified in the existing test 
procedure to test all gas ovens, including gas ovens with input rates 
exceeding 22,500 Btu/h.

E. Incorporating by Reference AHAM-OV-1-2011 for Determination of the 
Volume of Conventional Ovens

    As discussed above in section I.D, DOE has initiated an effort to 
determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards 
for conventional cooking products. As part of any amended standards for 
ovens, if DOE determines that cooking efficiency varies as a function 
of oven cavity volume, DOE may consider proposing standards as a 
function of oven cavity volume. Therefore, DOE is proposing in the 
SNOPR to amend section 3.1.1 of Appendix I to include a method for 
determining oven cavity volume.
    In order to develop test methods for measuring the oven cavity 
volume, DOE reviewed the industry test standard AHAM-OV-1-2011. DOE 
believes that Section 3, ``Definition,'' section 5.1, ``General 
Principles,'' and section 5.2 ``Overall Volume'' of AHAM-OV-1-2011 
provides a repeatable and reproducible method to measure cavity 
dimensions and calculate overall volume because it provides clear 
definitions of oven characteristics and provides tolerances for 
dimensional measurements. Section 5.1 of AHAM-OV-1-2011 specifies that 
if depressions or cutouts exist in the cavity wall, dimensions are 
taken from the plane representing the largest area of the surface. 
Section 5.1 of AHAM-OV-1-2011 also specifies that oven lights, racks, 
and other removable features shall be ignored in the overall volume 
calculation, and the volume of non-rectangular cavities is calculated 
by measuring the rectangular portion of the cavity and non-rectangular 
cavity separately and adding their volumes together.
    The procedure also includes a measurement of the oven's usable 
space, which is the volume inside the oven cavity available for the 
placement of food. The usable space is oven-specific and determined by 
measuring either the size of the cavity door aperture or the distance 
between barriers, racks, and rack supports inside the cavity or on the 
cavity walls. The lesser of these dimensions is used to calculate the 
volume of the usable space. DOE is not proposing to include the usable 
space measurements (section 5.3 of AHAM-OV-1-2011) because the overall 
cavity volume measurement provides a more accurate representation of 
the relationship between cavity volume and cooking efficiency as 
measured by the DOE test procedure in Appendix I.
    DOE notes that manufacturers may already be using AHAM-OV-1-2011 to 
measure the oven cavity volume published in marketing materials. 
Additionally, manufacturers provide exterior dimensions in the 
installation instructions. Incorporating a cavity measurement into 
Appendix I would, in most circumstances, add only the three additional 
measurements of cavity height, width, and depth. AHAM-OV-1-2011 also 
gives manufacturers the flexibility of selecting measurement equipment 
because the device used for measurement is not specified. Therefore, 
DOE expects that measuring oven volume according to AHAM-OV-1-2011 
would not place any significant burden on manufacturers. For the 
reasons discussed above, DOE proposes to amend section 3.1.1 of 
Appendix I to incorporate by reference Sections 3, 5.1, and 5.2 of 
AHAM-OV-1-2011 for measuring the overall oven cavity volume.

F. Conventional Oven Separator

    As part of DOE's review of products available on the market, DOE 
observed one conventional electric oven equipped with an oven separator 
that allows for cooking using the entire oven cavity in the absence of 
the separator or, if the separator is installed, splitting the oven 
into two smaller cavities that may be operated individually with 
independent temperature controls. DOE notes that the current test 
procedure in Appendix I includes provisions for measuring the energy 
consumption and cooking efficiency of single ovens and multiple 
(separate) ovens,\18\ but does not include provisions for how to test a 
single oven that can be configured as a full oven or as two separate 
smaller cavities. As a result, DOE conducted testing on this product in 
each possible oven configuration and evaluated the cooking efficiency 
results. The results from this testing are presented in Table III.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For multiple ovens, Appendix I specifies that the energy 
consumption and cooking efficiency be calculated as the average of 
each individual oven.

[[Page 71917]]



                 Table III.23--Oven Cooking Efficiency Results for Oven Separator Configurations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Cavity volume      Cooking
             Oven configuration                         Cooking modes              (cubic feet)   efficiency (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Oven (No Oven Separator)..............  Normal Bake, Forced Convection.....             5.9            10.5
Oven Separator_Upper Cavity................  Forced Convection \1\..............             2.7            16.7
Oven Separator_Bottom Cavity...............  Normal Bake, Forced Convection.....             3.0            13.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Upper cavity configuration is only capable of operation in forced convection mode. Normal bake function is
  not available.

    The test results show that the cooking efficiencies in each 
possible oven configuration were measurably different, ranging from 
10.5 percent for the full oven to 16.7 percent for the smaller upper 
cavity. As a result, DOE is proposing in the SNOPR that conventional 
ovens equipped with an oven separator shall be tested in each possible 
oven configuration (i.e., full oven cavity, upper cavity, and lower 
cavity) with the cooking efficiency and total annual energy consumption 
averaged.

G. Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure

    EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for all covered 
consumer products, including cooking products, to include measures of 
standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if technically feasible. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Accordingly, DOE conducted a rulemaking for 
conventional cooking products, dishwashers, and dehumidifiers to 
address standby and off mode energy consumption.\19\ In the October 
2012 Final Rule, DOE addressed standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption, as well as active mode fan-only operation, for 
conventional cooking products. 77 FR 65942 (Oct. 31, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ DOE pursued amendments to Appendix I addressing standby and 
off mode energy for microwave ovens as part of a separate 
rulemaking. The final rule for this microwave oven rulemaking 
published on January 18, 2013. 78 FR 4015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the January 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed a change to the 
definition of ``conventional cooking top'' to include induction 
technologies. DOE noted that under this proposed definition, induction 
cooking tops would be covered by the standby and off mode test 
procedures adopted in the separate test procedure rulemaking. DOE did 
not observe any standby mode or off mode operation or features unique 
to induction cooking tops that would warrant any changes to the standby 
mode and off mode test methods adopted by the October 2012 Final Rule 
for conventional cooking tops. 78 FR 6232, 6241 (Jan. 30, 2013).
    AHAM and BSH commented that they are not aware of any additional 
features or operational modes for induction cooking products and, thus, 
agree that the definitions of standby mode and off mode do not require 
revision. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 6; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 6) Because DOE 
did not receive any comments objecting to the proposed determination 
not to amend the standby mode and off mode test methods, and for the 
reasons discussed above, DOE is maintaining this determination in the 
SNOPR.
    Similarly, DOE notes that because gas cooking products with higher 
input rates are covered under the definition of ``cooking products'' in 
10 CFR 430.2, these products are covered by the standby and off mode 
test procedures discussed above. DOE conducted standby mode and off 
mode testing on commercial-style units and standard units with higher 
input rates in its test sample. Based on this testing, DOE did not 
observe any standby mode or off mode operation or features unique to 
these products that would warrant any changes to the standby mode and 
off mode test methods established in Appendix I section 3.1 by the 
October 2012 Final Rule for conventional cooking products.

H. Technical Corrections to the Calculation of Derived Results From 
Test Measurements

    DOE notes that section 4 in Appendix I, regarding the calculation 
of derived results from test measurements, contains a number of 
references to incorrect units of measurement. For example, section 
4.1.2.1.1 incorrectly provides that the annual primary energy 
consumption for cooking, ECO, should be expressed in Btus 
per year for gas ovens, instead of kBtu per year. DOE proposes in the 
SNOPR to correct the following sections of Appendix I to reference the 
appropriate units: 4.1.2.1.1, 4.1.2.2.1, 4.1.2.4.3, 4.1.2.5.3, 4.1.4.1, 
4.1.4.2, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.2.2.1, and 4.2.2.2.2.
    DOE also notes that section 4.2.3.2 in Appendix I, regarding the 
calculation of the integrated energy factor for conventional electric 
cooking tops, IRCT, uses an incorrect value for the annual 
useful cooking energy output, OCT, of 527.6 kBtu per year, 
which is the annual useful cooking energy output for gas cooking tops. 
The value of the annual useful cooking energy output for electric 
cooking tops should instead be 173.1 kWh per year. DOE is proposing to 
correct this error in the NOPR.

I. Headings for Conventional Cooking Top Calculations

    DOE notes that the headings for sections 4.2 and 4.2.1 in Appendix 
I regarding the calculations for conventional cooking tops were 
inadvertently removed. As a result, DOE is proposing to add the 
headings for section 4.2 ``Conventional cooking top,'' and section 
4.2.1, ``Surface unit cooking efficiency'' to appropriately describe 
these sections.

J. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

    EPCA requires that any new or amended test procedures for 
residential products must be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated 
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative 
average use cycle or period of use, and must not be unduly burdensome 
to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    As part of the January 2013 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that 
the amended test procedures would produce test results that measure the 
energy consumption of cooking tops during representative use, and that 
the test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 78 FR 
6232, 6242 (Jan. 30, 2013).
    For cooking tops, the test procedure proposed in January 2013 NOPR 
and this SNOPR follows the same method currently included in Appendix 
I, but would replace the aluminum test blocks with hybrid test blocks 
having thermal grease that joins the stainless steel base and aluminum 
body. The SNOPR also includes an additional test block size to be used 
for electric cooking top surface units with large diameters and gas 
cooking top surface units with higher input rates. In the January 2013 
NOPR,

[[Page 71918]]

DOE estimated that current testing represents a cost of approximately 
$500 per test for labor, with a one-time investment of $2,000 for test 
equipment ($1,000 for test blocks and $1,000 for instrumentation). 78 
FR 6232, 6242 (Jan. 30, 2013). The proposed reusable test blocks in the 
SNOPR would represent an expense of approximately $500 for each test 
block, or $1,500 for a set of large, medium, and small diameter test 
blocks. DOE estimated that the thermal grease necessary for a set of 
three tests blocks would cost approximately $100 but due to the need 
for frequent reapplication of the grease, DOE increased this estimate 
to $2,000 resulting in a total updated one-time investment of $4,500 
for test equipment. Test blocks would need to be replaced when they are 
no longer in tolerance. However DOE observed that the test blocks were 
still within the proposed tolerance after approximately 100 tests. No 
additional instrumentation would be required beyond what is required in 
the current test procedure. DOE stated that it does not believe this 
additional cost represents an excessive burden for test laboratories or 
manufacturers given the significant investments necessary to 
manufacture, test and market consumer appliances. The only additional 
time burden associated with the proposed test method is the time 
required to weigh the stainless steel base in addition to the aluminum 
body and to apply the thermal grease. This additional step in the test 
procedure would increase the test duration by about 5 minutes per 
surface unit.
    AHAM and BSH commented in response to the January 2013 NOPR that 
with only one set of test blocks, laboratories may only be able to 
perform two surface unit tests per day because of the time required to 
cool the test blocks. Accordingly, AHAM and BSH stated that it is 
likely that manufacturers and third-party laboratories will purchase 
multiple sets of test blocks to be able to run more tests per day. AHAM 
and BSH encouraged DOE to ask individual manufacturers and third-party 
test laboratories how many sets of test blocks they expect to need in 
order to more fully understand the actual burden imposed by the amended 
regulation. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 6; BSH, TP No. 8 at p. 6) AHAM and 
BSH also commented that DOE's test burden analysis is based only on 
certification and does not account for the required audit testing 
manufacturers would need to do to ensure that certification remains 
representative of production. (AHAM, TP No. 7 at p. 6; BSH, TP No. 8 at 
p. 6) AHAM asked DOE to elaborate more on the estimates for some of the 
costs, including whether the costs assume each manufacturer would only 
be requiring one set of test blocks. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, 
TP No. 5 at p. 46)
    DOE's estimates of manufacturer test burden in the January 2013 
NOPR were based on a purchase of a single set of test blocks. 
Manufacturers have the option to purchase multiple sets of test blocks 
to be able to run more tests per day, but purchasing even four sets 
would entail a onetime expense of approximately $10,000. Purchasing 
multiple sets may also extend the lifetime of the test blocks because a 
single set would not be used for every test. During DOE's testing and 
testing at a third-party lab, test technicians were able to run between 
five and seven tests per day. Given that many cooking tops have surface 
units of varying sizes and multiple cooking tops may be set up for test 
in a given day, the test technician could alternate which size surface 
unit was tested to allow time for a test block to cool, i.e., the 
technician could test a small surface unit with the small test block on 
a different cooking top while the large test block is cooling. While 
DOE did not account for any audit testing in the SNOPR, issues 
regarding compliance certification testing may be addressed as part of 
any energy conservation standards rulemaking. For the reasons discussed 
above, DOE concludes, given the small magnitude of the proposed changes 
(both in terms of the proposed test blocks, including the large test 
block included in the SNOPR, and the time needed for the test), that 
the newly proposed amended test procedure for cooking tops will not be 
unreasonably burdensome to conduct.
    As discussed in section III.D.2, DOE is proposing for gas ovens to 
require that the existing test block be used for all ovens, including 
both standard residential ovens and ovens with high input rates. As a 
result, DOE does not expect any increase in testing burden compared to 
the existing test procedure. As discussed in section III.E, DOE is also 
proposing to incorporate by reference AHAM-OV-1-2011 for measuring the 
overall oven cavity volume. DOE estimates that it would take on the 
order of one-half to one hour to conduct the cavity volume measurement 
for a single oven, and $50 to $100 per test for labor. Additionally, 
because manufacturers may already be using the AHAM procedure to 
measure oven cavity volume and because manufacturers already provide 
exterior dimensions in the installation instructions, DOE does not 
anticipate this measurement to be unduly burdensome to conduct. As 
discussed in section III.F, DOE is also proposing that conventional 
ovens equipped with an oven separator be tested in each possible oven 
configuration. DOE notes, based on its testing, that this may add two 
oven tests for the additional cavity configurations, and add 
approximately $2,750 for labor. DOE does not believe this additional 
cost represents an excessive burden for test laboratories or 
manufacturers given the significant investments necessary to 
manufacture, test and market consumer appliances.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. The proposed rule would amend the test method for 
measuring the energy efficiency of conventional cooking tops and ranges 
to include test methods applicable to induction cooking products and 
gas cooking products with higher input rates. The proposed rule would 
also include a test method for conventional ovens with

[[Page 71919]]

oven separators and incorporate by reference a test method to measure 
oven cavity volume.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity 
to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs 
less than a threshold number of workers or earns less than the average 
annual receipts specified in 13 CFR part 121. The threshold values set 
forth in these regulations use size standards and codes established by 
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) that are 
available at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. The threshold number for NAICS classification 
code 335221, titled ``Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturing,'' is 
750 employees; this classification includes manufacturers of 
residential conventional cooking products.
    Most of the manufacturers supplying conventional cooking products 
are large multinational corporations. DOE surveyed the AHAM member 
directory to identify manufacturers of residential conventional cooking 
products. DOE then consulted publicly-available data, purchased company 
reports from vendors such as Dun and Bradstreet, and contacted 
manufacturers, where needed, to determine if they meet the SBA's 
definition of a ``small business manufacturing facility'' and have 
their manufacturing facilities located within the United States. Based 
on this analysis, DOE estimates that there are nine small businesses 
that manufacture conventional cooking products covered by the proposed 
tests procedure amendments.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on 
small manufacturers under the applicable provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. The proposed rule would amend DOE's test procedures 
for cooking products by incorporating testing provisions to address 
active mode energy consumption for induction surface units and surface 
units with higher input rates that will be used to develop and test 
compliance with any future energy conservation standards that may be 
established by DOE. The proposed test procedure amendments involve the 
measurement of active mode energy consumption through the use of a 
different metal test block than is currently specified for conventional 
cooking tops. The proposed amendments would also apply for testing 
products currently considered conventional cooking tops. DOE estimates 
a cost for this new equipment of approximately $4,500-$10,000. 
Additionally, DOE estimates a cost of approximately $23,900 for an 
average small manufacturer to test a full product line of induction 
surface units and surface units with high input rates not currently 
covered by the test procedure. This estimate assumes $500 per test, as 
described in section III.J, with up to 48 total tests per manufacturer 
needed, assuming 11 models \20\ with either four or six individual 
tests per cooking top model. This cost is small (0.15 percent) compared 
to the average annual revenue of the nine identified small businesses, 
which DOE estimates to be over $16 million.\21\ These tests follow the 
same methodology and can be conducted in the same facilities used for 
the current energy testing of conventional cooking tops, so there would 
be no additional facilities costs required by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ DOE considered different configurations of the same basic 
model (where surface units were placed in different positions on the 
cooking top) as unique models.
    \21\ Estimated average revenue is based on financial information 
provided for the small businesses in reports provided by Dun and 
Bradstreet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The incorporation by reference of AHAM-OV-1-2011 to measure oven 
cavity volume and the addition of a test method to measure conventional 
ovens with an oven separator will not significantly impact small 
manufacturers under the applicable provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. DOE estimates a cost of $4,500 for an average small 
manufacturer to measure the cavity volume of its entire product 
offerings which is only 0.03 percent of the average annual revenue of 
the nine identified small businesses. This estimate assumes $100 per 
test as described in section III.1 with up to 44 tests per 
manufacturer. Additionally, no small conventional cooking product 
manufacturer, as defined by the SBA, offers a product with an oven 
separator.
    For these reasons, DOE tentatively concludes and certifies that the 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared 
a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will 
transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 
605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of covered products must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according 
to the applicable DOE test procedure, including any amendments adopted 
for that test procedure. DOE has established regulations for the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 
products and commercial equipment, including conventional cooking 
products. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The 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.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that 
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for conventional cooking products. DOE has 
determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are 
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing 
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this proposed rule would 
amend the existing test procedures without affecting the amount, 
quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not 
result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered 
by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which 
applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule 
without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, 
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact 
statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies

[[Page 71920]]

formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State 
law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires 
agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority 
supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of 
the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The 
Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process 
to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism 
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy 
describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in 
the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this 
proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) 
No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 
12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this 
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and 
determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, 
nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or 
more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988) that this regulation would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    The regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring the 
energy efficiency of conventional cooking products is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not 
have a

[[Page 71921]]

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by 
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy 
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The proposed rule incorporates test methods contained in the AHAM 
OV-1-2011 standard, ``Procedures for the Determination and Expression 
of the Volume of Household Microwave and Conventional Ovens''. DOE has 
evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether this industry 
standard fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the 
FEAA, (i.e., that it was developed in a manner that fully provides for 
public participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with the 
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in this standard prior to 
prescribing a final rule.

V. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at 
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this SNOPR.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

[[Page 71922]]

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. Hybrid Test Blocks
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the use of hybrid test 
blocks with a layer of thermal grease for testing all cooking tops, 
including the potential burden associated with the requirement for such 
new test equipment. (See section III.C.1 and III.C.5)
2. Typical Cookware Thickness
    DOE seeks comment on the typical thickness of cookware compatible 
with induction cooking tops and gas cooking tops with high surface unit 
input rates. (See section III.C.1)
3. Additional Test Block Size for Electric Resistance and Induction 
Surface Units
    DOE invites comment on whether the proposed addition of a test 
block size of 10.5 inches in diameter for larger-diameter electric 
cooking tops will be sufficient to capture the range of surface unit 
diameters currently available on the market. (See section III.C.3)
4. Non-Circular and Flexible Electric Surface Units
    DOE invites comments on whether using the smallest dimension of a 
non-circular electric surface unit is appropriate for determining the 
proper test block size. DOE also invites comments on its proposal to 
test surface units with flexible concentric sizes at each unique size 
setting and full-surface induction cooking tops using each of three 
test block sizes, with the test block placed in the center of the 
usable cooking surface during each test. DOE also welcomes comments on 
its proposal to not require testing of electric and gas cooking top 
surface units, such as bridge zones, warming plates, grills and 
griddles, in determining cooking top efficiency. (See section III.C.4)
5. Thermal Grease Characteristics
    DOE seeks comment on the amount, application technique, and thermal 
properties of the thermal grease specified for use between the 
stainless steel base and aluminum body of the hybrid test blocks. 
Specifically, DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require a thermal 
grease having a thermal conductivity of at least 1.73 Btu/hr-ft-[deg]F 
(1.0 W/m-K), applied evenly to the contacting surfaces of the base and 
body. (See section III.C.5)
6. Clarification of the Reduced Energy Input Setting
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to clarify the ``maximum 
energy input rate'' specified in the cooking tops test procedure in 
Appendix I for determining the reduced energy input setting. (See 
section III.C.7)
7. Gas Cooking Top Surface Units With Input Rates >14,000 Btu/h
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the use of a 10.5-inch 
hybrid test block for testing all gas surface units rated above 14,000 
Btu/h, including additional data on the efficiency and combustion 
characteristics of cooking top surface units with high input rates. 
(See section III.D.1)
8. Gas Ovens With High Input Rates
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the use of the test 
block currently specified in Appendix I for testing all ovens that are 
covered by the definition of conventional ovens, including commercial-
style ovens or any ovens rated above 22,500 Btu/h. (See section 
III.D.2)
9. Test Method To Measure Oven Cavity Volume
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference AHAM-
OV-1-2011 to measure the overall oven cavity volume. (See section 
III.E).
10. Test Method for Conventional Ovens With an Oven Separator
    DOE seeks comment on the proposed amendments to require that 
conventional ovens equipped with an oven separator be tested in each 
possible oven configuration (i.e., full oven cavity, upper cavity, and 
lower cavity) with the results averaged. (See section III.F).
11. Technical Corrections
    DOE seeks comment on the proposed amendments to correct the units 
of measurement in sections 4.1.2.1.1, 4.1.2.2.1, 4.1.2.4.3, 4.1.2.5.3, 
4.1.4.1, 4.1.4.2, 4.2.1.2, 4.2.2.2.1, and 4.2.2.2.2. DOE also requests 
comment on the proposed amendments to correct the value of the annual 
useful cooking energy output for electric cooking tops referenced in 
section 4.2.3.2. (See section III.H)

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 24, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 
part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 
forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

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 means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens 
which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal 
surface containing one or more surface units which utilize a gas flame, 
electric resistance heating, or electric inductive heating.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 430.3 is amended by redesignating paragraph (h)(7) as (h)(8) 
and adding new paragraph (h)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (7) AHAM OV-1-2011, (``AHAM OV-1''), Procedures for the 
Determination and Expression of the Volume of Household Microwave and 
Conventional Ovens, (2011), IBR approved for appendix I to subpart B.
* * * * *

Appendix I--[Amended]

0
4. Appendix I to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
0
a. By revising the Note;
0
b. In section 1. Definitions, by:
0
i. Revising section 1.1;
0
ii. Redesignating sections 1.2 through 1.19 as sections 1.3 through 
1.20, respectively; and
0
iii. Adding section 1.2;
0
c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by:

[[Page 71923]]

0
i. Revising sections 2.6, 2.7, 2.7.2 and 2.7.3;
0
ii. Redesignating sections 2.7.4 and 2.7.5 as sections 2.7.5 and 2.7.6, 
respectively; and
0
iii. Adding sections 2.7.4 and 2.7.7;
0
d. By revising section 3. Test Methods and Measurements
0
e. In section 4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements, 
by:
0
i. Revising sections 4.1.2.1.1, 4.1.2.2.1, 4.1.2.4.3, 4.1.2.5, 
4.1.2.5.1, 4.1.2.5.2, 4.1.2.5.3. 4.1.3.2, 4.1.4.1, 4.1.4.2, 4.2.1.1, 
4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.3, 4.2.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2.2, and 4.2.3.2; and
0
ii. Adding sections 4.2 and 4.2.1.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix I to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Conventional Ranges, Conventional Cooking 
Tops, Conventional Ovens, and Microwave Ovens

    Note: Any representation related to active mode energy 
consumption of conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops 
(except for induction cooking products), and conventional ovens must 
be based upon results generated under this test procedure. Any 
representation related to standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption of conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops 
(except for induction cooking products), conventional ovens, and 
microwave ovens, and any representation made after [Insert date 180 
days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register] 
related to any energy consumption of induction cooking products, 
must be based upon results generated under this test procedure.
    Upon the compliance date(s) of any energy conservation 
standard(s) for conventional ranges, conventional cooking tops, 
conventional ovens, and microwave ovens, use of the applicable 
provisions of this test procedure to demonstrate compliance with the 
energy conservation standard will also be required.

1. Definitions

    1.1 Active mode means a mode in which the product is connected 
to a mains power source, has been activated, and is performing the 
main function of producing heat by means of a gas flame, electric 
resistance heating, electric inductive heating, or microwave energy, 
or circulating air internally or externally to the cooking product. 
Delay start mode is a one-off, user-initiated, short-duration 
function that is associated with an active mode.
    1.2 AHAM-OV-1 means the test standard published by the 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers titled, ``Procedures for 
the Determination and Expression of the Volume of Household 
Microwave and Conventional Ovens,'' Standard OV-1-2011 (incorporated 
by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
* * * * *

2. Test Conditions

* * * * *
    2.6 Normal nonoperating temperature. All areas of the appliance 
to be tested shall attain the normal nonoperating temperature, as 
defined in section 1.13 of this appendix, before any testing begins. 
The equipment for measuring the applicable normal nonoperating 
temperature shall be as described in sections 2.9.3.1, 2.9.3.2, 
2.9.3.3, and 2.9.3.4 of this appendix, as applicable.
    2.7 Test blocks for conventional oven and cooking top. The test 
blocks for conventional ovens and the test block bodies for 
conventional cooking tops shall be made of aluminum alloy No. 6061, 
with a specific heat of 0.23 Btu/lb- [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 produced to be flat to 
within 0.002 inch (0.051 mm) TIR (total indicator reading). The 
bottom of the test block body and top and bottom of the test block 
base shall not exceed .004 (0.102 mm) TIR at the start of testing. 
Determine the actual weight of each test block, test block body, and 
test block base with a scale with an accuracy as indicated in 
section 2.9.5 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    2.7.2 Small test block for conventional cooking top. The small 
test block shall comprise a body and separate base, between which a 
10-12 g layer of thermally conductive grease shall be applied. The 
small test block body, W2, shall be 6.25  
0.05 inches (158.8  1.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 
2.5 inches (64 mm) high and shall weigh 7.5  0.1 lbs 
(3.40  0.05 kg). The small test block base, 
W3, shall be 6.25  0.05 inches (158.8  1.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) high 
and shall weigh 2.2  0.1 lbs (1.00  0.05 
kg). The small test block body shall not be fixed to the base, and 
shall be centered over the base for testing.
    2.7.3 Medium test block for conventional cooking top. The large 
test block shall comprise a body and separate base, between which a 
20-25 g layer of thermally conductive grease shall be applied. The 
medium test block body for the conventional cooking top, 
W4, shall be 9  0.05 inches (228.6  1.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 2.7 inches (69 mm) high 
and shall weigh 16.9  0.1 lbs (7.67  0.05 
kg). The medium test block base, W5, shall be 9  0.05 inches (228.6  1.3 mm) in diameter, 
approximately 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) high and shall weigh 4.3  0.1 lbs (1.95  0.05 kg). The medium test block 
body shall not be fixed to the base, and shall be centered over the 
base for testing.
    2.7.4 Large test block for conventional cooking top. The large 
test block shall comprise a body and separate base, between which a 
28-34 g layer of thermally conductive grease shall be applied. The 
large test block body for the conventional cooking top, 
W6, shall be 10.5  0.05 inches (266.7  1.3 mm) in diameter, approximately 3.5 inches (88.9 mm) high 
and shall weigh 29.4  0.1 lbs (13.33  0.05 
kg). The large test block base, W7, shall be 10.5  0.05 inches (266.7  1.3 mm) in diameter, 
approximately 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) high and shall weigh 6.1  0.1 lbs (2.77  0.05 kg). The large test block 
body shall not be fixed to the base, and shall be centered over the 
base for testing.
* * * * *
    2.7.7 Thermal grease. The thermal grease used for each test 
block shall have a thermal conductivity of greater than or equal to 
1.73 Btu/hr-ft-[deg]F (1.0 W/m-K). The thermal grease shall be 
applied evenly so that it covers the contacting surfaces of the body 
and base completely. Pressure shall be applied when joining the two 
pieces together. After six tests, the layer of thermal grease shall 
be removed and a new layer shall be reapplied. If the aluminum body 
slides off the stainless steel base during the test, the test shall 
be terminated and thermal grease shall be reapplied to the test 
block.
* * * * *

3. Test Methods and Measurements

    3.1. Test methods.
    3.1.1 Conventional oven. Perform a test by establishing the 
testing conditions set forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this 
appendix and turn off the gas flow to the conventional cooking top, 
if so equipped. Before beginning the test, the conventional oven 
shall be at its normal non-operating temperature as defined in 
section 1.13 and described in section 2.6 of this appendix. Set the 
conventional oven test block W1 approximately in the 
center of the usable baking space. If there is a selector switch for 
selecting the mode of operation of the oven, set it for normal 
baking. If an oven permits baking by either forced convection by 
using a fan, or without forced convection, the oven is to be tested 
in each of those two modes. The oven shall remain on for one 
complete thermostat ``cut-off/cut-on'' of the electrical resistance 
heaters or gas burners after the test block temperature has 
increased 234 [deg]F (130 [deg]C) above its initial temperature.
    3.1.1.1 Self-cleaning operation of a conventional oven. 
Establish the test conditions set forth in section 2, Test 
Conditions, of this appendix. Turn off the gas flow to the 
conventional cooking top. The temperature of the conventional oven 
shall be its normal non-operating temperature as defined in section 
1.13 and described in section 2.6 of this appendix. Then set the 
conventional oven's self-cleaning process in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions. If the self-cleaning process is 
adjustable, use the average time recommended by the manufacturer for 
a moderately soiled oven.
    3.1.1.2 Conventional oven standby mode and off mode power. 
Establish the standby mode and off mode testing conditions set forth 
in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. For conventional 
ovens that take

[[Page 71924]]

some time to enter a stable state from a higher power state as 
discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second 
Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), allow 
sufficient time for the conventional oven to reach the lower power 
state before proceeding with the test measurement. Follow the test 
procedure as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) for testing in each possible mode as described in 
3.1.1.2.1 and 3.1.1.2.2 of this appendix. For units in which power 
varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, set the 
clock time to 3:23 at the end of the stabilization period specified 
in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 (First Edition), and use 
the average power approach described in Section 5, Paragraph 
5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First Edition), but with a single test period 
of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec after an additional stabilization period 
until the clock time reaches 3:33.
    3.1.1.2.1 If the conventional oven has an inactive mode, as 
defined in section 1.12 of this appendix, measure and record the 
average inactive mode power of the conventional oven, 
PIA, in watts.
    3.1.1.2.2 If the conventional oven has an off mode, as defined 
in section 1.14 of this appendix, measure and record the average off 
mode power of the conventional oven, POM, in watts.
    3.1.1.3 Conventional oven cavity volume. Measure the oven cavity 
volume according to the test procedure specified in Sections 3, 5.1 
and 5.2 of AHAM-OV-1 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    3.1.2 Conventional cooking top. Establish the test conditions 
set forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. Turn off 
the gas flow to the conventional oven(s), if so equipped. The 
temperature of the conventional cooking top shall be its normal 
nonoperating temperature as defined in section 1.13 and described in 
section 2.6 of this appendix. Set the test block in the center of 
the surface unit under test. The small test block, W2 and 
W3, shall be used on electric surface units with a 
smallest dimension of 7 inches (178 mm) or less. The medium test 
block, W4 and W5, shall be used on electric 
surface units with a smallest dimension over 7 inches (178 mm) but 
less than 10 inches and on gas surface units with input rates less 
than 14,000 Btu/h. The large test block, W6 and 
W7, shall be used on electric surface units with a 
smallest dimension of 10 inches or greater and on gas surface units 
with input rates greater than or equal to 14,000 Btu/h. Each surface 
unit shall be tested separately. For electric surface units with 
flexible concentric sizes, each unique size setting must be tested 
individually with the appropriate test block based on the outer 
dimensions of the surface unit corresponding to that particular 
setting.
    Full-surface induction cooking tops must be tested three times, 
once with each test block size (small, medium, and large). For each 
test, the test block shall be placed in the center of the usable 
area of the cooking surface, equidistant from any cooking top 
boundaries. The center of the usable cooking surface may be offset 
from the geometric center of the cooking top due to surface unit 
controls or a display.
    Turn on the surface unit under test and set its energy input 
rate to the maximum setting. When the test block reaches 144 [deg]F 
(80 [deg]C) above its initial test block temperature, immediately 
reduce the energy input rate to 25  5 percent of the 
maximum energy input rate. The energy input rate at the reduced 
setting is calculated as the total energy consumed at the reduced 
setting divided by the time operated at the reduced setting. The 
maximum energy input rate is the total energy consumed at the 
maximum setting divided by the time operated at the maximum setting. 
After 15  0.1 minutes at the reduced energy setting, 
turn off the surface unit under test.
    3.1.2.1 Conventional cooking top standby mode and off mode 
power. Establish the standby mode and off mode testing conditions 
set forth in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. For 
conventional cooktops that take some time to enter a stable state 
from a higher power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, 
Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  430.3), allow sufficient time for the conventional cooking top 
to reach the lower power state before proceeding with the test 
measurement. Follow the test procedure as specified in Section 5, 
Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each 
possible mode as described in sections 3.1.2.1.1 and 3.1.2.1.2 of 
this appendix. For units in which power varies as a function of 
displayed time in standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 at the 
end of the stabilization period specified in Section 5, Paragraph 
5.3 of IEC 62301 (First Edition), and use the average power approach 
described in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First 
Edition), but with a single test period of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec 
after an additional stabilization period until the clock time 
reaches 3:33.
    3.1.2.1.1 If the conventional cooking top has an inactive mode, 
as defined in section 1.12 of this appendix, measure and record the 
average inactive mode power of the conventional cooking top, 
PIA, in watts.
    3.1.2.1.2 If the conventional cooking top has an off mode, as 
defined in section 1.14 of this appendix, measure and record the 
average off mode power of the conventional cooking top, 
POM, in watts.
    3.1.3 Conventional range standby mode and off mode power. 
Establish the standby mode and off mode testing conditions set forth 
in section 2, Test Conditions, of this appendix. For conventional 
ranges that take some time to enter a stable state from a higher 
power state as discussed in Section 5, Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 
62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), 
allow sufficient time for the conventional range to reach the lower 
power state before proceeding with the test measurement. Follow the 
test procedure as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 
62301 (Second Edition) for testing in each possible mode as 
described in sections 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2 of this appendix. For 
units in which power varies as a function of displayed time in 
standby mode, set the clock time to 3:23 at the end of the 
stabilization period specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 
62301 (First Edition), and use the average power approach described 
in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First Edition), but 
with a single test period of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec after an 
additional stabilization period until the clock time reaches 3:33.
    3.1.3.1 If the conventional range has an inactive mode, as 
defined in section 1.12 of this appendix, measure and record the 
average inactive mode power of the conventional range, 
PIA, in watts.
    3.1.3.2 If the conventional range has an off mode, as defined in 
section 1.14 of this appendix, measure and record the average off 
mode power of the conventional range, POM, in watts.
    3.1.4 Microwave oven.
    3.1.4.1 Microwave oven test standby mode and off mode power. 
Establish the testing conditions set forth in section 2, Test 
Conditions, of this appendix. For microwave ovens that drop from a 
higher power state to a lower power state as discussed in Section 5, 
Paragraph 5.1, Note 1 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition) (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), allow sufficient time for the microwave 
oven to reach the lower power state before proceeding with the test 
measurement. Follow the test procedure as specified in Section 5, 
Paragraph 5.3.2 of IEC 62301 (Second Edition). For units in which 
power varies as a function of displayed time in standby mode, set 
the clock time to 3:23 and use the average power approach described 
in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3.2(a) of IEC 62301 (First Edition), but 
with a single test period of 10 minutes +0/-2 sec after an 
additional stabilization period until the clock time reaches 3:33. 
If a microwave oven is capable of operation in either standby mode 
or off mode, as defined in sections 1.18 and 1.14 of this appendix, 
respectively, or both, test the microwave oven in each mode in which 
it can operate.
    3.2 Test measurements.
    3.2.1 Conventional oven test energy consumption. If the oven 
thermostat controls the oven temperature without cycling on and off, 
measure the energy consumed, EO, when the temperature of 
the block reaches TO (TO is 234 [deg]F (130 
[deg]C) above the initial block temperature, TI). If the 
oven thermostat operates by cycling on and off, make the following 
series of measurements: Measure the block temperature, 
TA, and the energy consumed, EA, or volume of 
gas consumed, VA, at the end of the last ``ON'' period of 
the conventional oven before the block reaches TO. 
Measure the block temperature, TB, and the energy 
consumed, EB, or volume of gas consumed, VB, 
at the beginning of the next ``ON'' period. Measure the block 
temperature, TC, and the energy consumed, EC, 
or volume of gas consumed, VC, at the end of that ``ON'' period. 
Measure the block temperature, TD, and the energy 
consumed, ED, or volume of gas consumed, VD, 
at the beginning of the following ``ON'' period. Energy measurements 
for EO, EA, EB, EC, and 
ED should be expressed in watt-hours (kJ) for 
conventional electric ovens, and volume measurements for 
VA, VB, VC, and VD 
should be expressed in standard cubic feet (L) of gas for 
conventional gas ovens. For a gas oven, measure in watt-hours (kJ) 
any electrical

[[Page 71925]]

energy, EIO, consumed by an ignition device or other electrical 
components required for the operation of a conventional gas oven 
while heating the test block to TO.
    3.2.1.1 Conventional oven average test energy consumption. If 
the conventional oven permits baking by either forced convection or 
without forced convection and the oven thermostat does not cycle on 
and off, measure the energy consumed with the forced convection 
mode, (EO)1, and without the forced convection 
mode, (EO)2, when the temperature of the block 
reaches TO (TO is 234 [deg]F (130 [deg]C) 
above the initial block temperature, TI). If the 
conventional oven permits baking by either forced convection or 
without forced convection and the oven thermostat operates by 
cycling on and off, make the following series of measurements with 
and without the forced convection mode: Measure the block 
temperature, TA, and the energy consumed, EA, 
or volume of gas consumed, VA, at the end of the last 
``ON'' period of the conventional oven before the block reaches 
TO. Measure the block temperature, TB, and the 
energy consumed, EB, or volume of gas consumed, 
VB, at the beginning of the next ``ON'' period. Measure 
the block temperature, TC, and the energy consumed, 
EC, or volume of gas consumed, VC, at the end 
of that ``ON'' period. Measure the block temperature, TD, 
and the energy consumed, ED, or volume of gas consumed, 
VD, at the beginning of the following ``ON'' period. 
Energy measurements for EO, EA, EB, 
EC, and ED should be expressed in watt-hours 
(kJ) for conventional electric ovens, and volume measurements for 
VA, VB, VC, and VD 
should be expressed in standard cubic feet (L) of gas for 
conventional gas ovens. For a gas oven that can be operated with or 
without forced convection, measure in watt-hours (kJ) any electrical 
energy consumed by an ignition device or other electrical components 
required for the operation of a conventional gas oven while heating 
the test block to TO using the forced convection mode, 
(EIO)1, and without using the forced 
convection mode, (EIO)2.
    3.2.1.2 Conventional oven fan-only mode energy consumption. If 
the conventional oven is capable of operation in fan-only mode, 
measure the fan-only mode energy consumption, EOF, 
expressed in kilowatt-hours (kJ) of electricity consumed by the 
conventional oven for the duration of fan-only mode, using a watt-
hour meter as specified in section 2.9.1.1 of this appendix. 
Alternatively, if the duration of fan-only mode is known, the watt-
hours consumed may be measured for a period of 10 minutes in fan-
only mode, using a watt-hour meter as specified in section 2.9.1.1 
of this appendix. Multiply this value by the time in minutes that 
the conventional oven remains in fan-only mode, tOF, and 
divide by 10,000 to obtain EOF. The alternative approach 
may be used only if the resulting EOF is representative 
of energy use during the entire fan-only mode.
    3.2.1.3 Energy consumption of self-cleaning operation. Measure 
the energy consumption, ES, in watt-hours (kJ) of electricity or the 
volume of gas consumption, VS, in standard cubic feet (L) 
during the self-cleaning test set forth in section 3.1.1.1 of this 
appendix. For a gas oven, also measure in watt-hours (kJ) any 
electrical energy, EIS, consumed by ignition devices or 
other electrical components required during the self-cleaning test.
    3.2.1.4 Standby mode and off mode energy consumption. Make 
measurements as specified in section 3.1.1.2 of this appendix. If 
the conventional oven is capable of operating in inactive mode, as 
defined in section 1.12 of this appendix, measure the average 
inactive mode power of the conventional oven, PIA, in 
watts as specified in section 3.1.1.2.1 of this appendix. If the 
conventional oven is capable of operating in off mode, as defined in 
section 1.14 of this appendix, measure the average off mode power of 
the conventional oven, POM, in watts as specified in 
section 3.1.1.2.2 of this appendix.
    3.2.1.5 Conventional oven cavity volume. Measure the oven cavity 
volume, CVO, in cubic feet (L), as specified in section 
3.1.1.3 of this appendix.
    3.2.2 Conventional surface unit test energy consumption.
    3.2.2.1 Conventional surface unit average test energy 
consumption. For the surface unit under test, measure the energy 
consumption, ECT, in watt-hours (kJ) of electricity or 
the volume of gas consumption, VCT, in standard cubic 
feet (L) of gas and the test block temperature, TCT, at 
the end of the 15 minute (reduced input setting) test interval for 
the test specified in section 3.1.2 of this appendix and the total 
time, tCT, in hours, that the unit is under test. Measure 
any electrical energy, EIC, consumed by an ignition 
device of a gas heating element or other electrical components 
required for the operation of the conventional gas cooking top in 
watt-hours (kJ). For full-surface induction cooking tops, the values 
described above shall be measured for each test block.
    3.2.2.2 Conventional surface unit standby mode and off mode 
energy consumption. Make measurements as specified in section 
3.1.2.1 of this appendix. If the conventional surface unit is 
capable of operating in inactive mode, as defined in section 1.12 of 
this appendix, measure the average inactive mode power of the 
conventional surface unit, PIA, in watts as specified in 
section 3.1.2.1.1 of this appendix. If the conventional surface unit 
is capable of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.14 of 
this appendix, measure the average off mode power of the 
conventional surface unit, POM, in watts as specified in 
section 3.1.2.1.2 of this appendix.
    3.2.3 Conventional range standby mode and off mode energy 
consumption. Make measurements as specified in section 3.1.3 of this 
appendix. If the conventional range is capable of operating in 
inactive mode, as defined in section 1.13 of this appendix, measure 
the average inactive mode power of the conventional range, 
PIA, in watts as specified in section 3.1.3.1 of this 
appendix. If the conventional range is capable of operating in off 
mode, as defined in section 1.14 of this appendix, measure the 
average off mode power of the conventional range, POM, in 
watts as specified in section 3.1.3.2 of this appendix.
    3.2.4 Microwave oven test standby mode and off mode power. Make 
measurements as specified in Section 5, Paragraph 5.3 of IEC 62301 
(Second Edition) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3). If 
the microwave oven is capable of operating in standby mode, as 
defined in section 1.18 of this appendix, measure the average 
standby mode power of the microwave oven, PSB, in watts 
as specified in section 3.1.4.1 of this appendix. If the microwave 
oven is capable of operating in off mode, as defined in section 1.14 
of this appendix, measure the average off mode power of the 
microwave oven, POM, as specified in section 3.1.4.1.
    3.3 Recorded values.
    3.3.1 Record the test room temperature, TR, at the 
start and end of each range, oven or cooktop test, as determined in 
section 2.5 of this appendix.
    3.3.2 Record the measured test block, test block body, and test 
block base weights W1, W2, W3, 
W4, W5, W6, and W7 in 
pounds (kg).
    3.3.3 Record the initial temperature, T1, of the test 
block under test.
    3.3.4 For a conventional oven with a thermostat which operates 
by cycling on and off, record the conventional oven test 
measurements TA, EA, TB, 
EB, TC, EC, TD, and 
ED for conventional electric ovens or TA, 
VA, TB, VB, TC, 
VC, TD, and VD for conventional gas 
ovens. If the thermostat controls the oven temperature without 
cycling on and off, record EO. For a gas oven which also 
uses electrical energy for the ignition or operation of the oven, 
also record EIO.
    3.3.5 For a conventional oven that can be operated with or 
without forced convection and the oven thermostat controls the oven 
temperature without cycling on and off, measure the energy consumed 
with the forced convection mode, (EO)1, and 
without the forced convection mode, (EO)2. If 
the conventional oven operates with or without forced convection and 
the thermostat controls the oven temperature by cycling on and off, 
record the conventional oven test measurements TA, 
EA, TB, EB, TC, 
EC, TD, and ED for conventional 
electric ovens or TA, VA, TB, 
VB, TC, VC, TD, and 
VD for conventional gas ovens. For a gas oven that can be 
operated with or without forced convection, measure any electrical 
energy consumed by an ignition device or other electrical components 
used during the forced convection mode, 
(EIO)1, and without using the forced 
convection mode, (EIO)2.
    3.3.6 Record the measured energy consumption, ES, or 
gas consumption, VS, and for a gas oven, any electrical 
energy, EIS, for the test of the self-cleaning operation 
of a conventional oven.
    3.3.7 For conventional ovens, record the conventional oven 
standby mode and off mode test measurements PIA and 
POM, if applicable. For conventional cooktops, record the 
conventional cooking top standby mode and off mode test measurements 
PIA and POM, if applicable. For conventional 
ranges, record the conventional range standby mode and off mode test 
measurements PIA and POM, if applicable.
    3.3.8 For conventional ovens, record the measured oven cavity 
volume, CVO, in cubic feet (L), rounded to the nearest 
tenth of a cubic foot (nearest L).
    3.3.9 For the surface unit under test, record the electric 
energy consumption, ECT,

[[Page 71926]]

or the gas volume consumption, VCT, the final test block 
temperature, TCT, and the total test time, tCT. For a gas 
cooking top which uses electrical energy for ignition of the 
burners, also record EIC.
    3.3.10 Record the heating value, Hn, as determined in section 
2.2.2.2 of this appendix for the natural gas supply.
    3.3.11 Record the heating value, Hp, as determined in section 
2.2.2.3 of this appendix for the propane supply.
    3.3.12 Record the average standby mode power, PSB, 
for the microwave oven standby mode, as determined in section 3.2.4 
of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of operating in 
standby mode. Record the average off mode power, POM, for 
the microwave oven off mode power test, as determined in section 
3.2.4 of this appendix for a microwave oven capable of operating in 
off mode.

4. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

* * * * *
    4.1.2.1.1 Annual primary energy consumption. Calculate the 
annual primary energy consumption for cooking, ECO, 
expressed in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year for electric ovens and in 
kBtus (kJ) per year for gas ovens, and defined as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.005

for electric ovens,

Where:

EO = test energy consumption as measured in section 3.2.1 
or as calculated in section 4.1.1 or section 4.1.1.1 of this 
appendix.
Ke = 3.412 Btu/Wh (3.6 kJ/Wh,) conversion factor of watt-
hours to Btus.
OO = 29.3 kWh (105,480 kJ) per year, annual useful 
cooking energy output of conventional electric oven.
W1 = measured weight of test block in pounds (kg).
Cp = 0.23 Btu/lb-[deg]F (0.96 kJ/kg / [deg]C), specific 
heat of test block.
TS = 234[emsp14][deg]F (130 [deg]C), temperature rise of 
test block.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.006

for gas ovens,

Where:

EO = test energy consumption as measured in section 
3.2.1. or as calculated in section 4.1.1 or section 4.1.1.1 of this 
appendix.
OO = 88.8 kBtu (93,684 kJ) per year, annual useful 
cooking energy output of conventional gas oven.
W1, Cp and TS are the same as 
defined above.
* * * * *
    4.1.2.2.1 Annual primary energy consumption. Calculate the 
annual primary energy consumption for conventional oven self-
cleaning operations, ESC, expressed in kilowatt-hours 
(kJ) per year for electric ovens and in kBtus (kJ) for gas ovens, 
and defined as:

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

Where:

ES = energy consumption in watt-hours, as measured in 
section 3.2.1.3 of this appendix.
Se = 4, average number of times a self-cleaning operation 
of a conventional electric oven is used per year.
K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours.
or

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

Where:

VS = gas consumption in standard cubic feet (L), as 
measured in section 3.2.1.3 of this appendix.
H = Hn or Hp, the heating value of the gas 
used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3 of 
this appendix in Btus per standard cubic foot (kJ/L).
Sg = 4, average number of times a self-cleaning operation 
of a conventional gas oven is used per year.
K = 0.001 kBtu/Btu conversion factor for Btus to kBtus
* * * * *
    4.1.2.4.3 Conventional gas oven energy consumption. Calculate 
the total annual gas energy consumption of a conventional gas oven, 
EAOG, expressed in kBtus (kJ) per year and defined as:

EA0G = ECO + ESC,

Where:

ECO = annual primary cooking energy consumption as 
determined in section 4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
ESC = annual primary self-cleaning energy consumption as 
determined in section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix.
    If the conventional gas oven uses electrical energy, calculate 
the total annual electrical energy consumption, EAOE, 
expressed in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and defined as:

EAOE = ESO + ESS,

Where:

ESO = annual secondary cooking energy consumption as 
determined in section 4.1.2.1.2 of this appendix.
ESS = annual secondary self-cleaning energy consumption 
as determined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix.

    If the conventional gas oven uses electrical energy, also 
calculate the total integrated annual electrical energy consumption, 
IEAOE, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and 
defined as:

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

Where:

ESO = annual secondary cooking energy consumption as 
determined in section 4.1.2.1.2 of this appendix.
ESS = annual secondary self-cleaning energy consumption 
as determined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix.
EOTLP = annual combined low-power mode energy consumption 
as determined in section 4.1.2.3 of this appendix.
EOF = fan-only mode energy consumption as measured in 
section 3.2.1.2 of this appendix.
NOG = representative number of annual conventional gas 
oven cooking cycles per year, which is equal to 183 cycles for a 
conventional gas oven without self-clean capability and 197 cycles 
for a conventional gas oven with self-clean capability.

    4.1.2.5 Total annual energy consumption of multiple conventional 
ovens and conventional ovens with an oven separator. If the cooking 
appliance includes more than one conventional oven or consists of a 
conventional oven equipped with an oven separator that allows for 
cooking using the entire oven cavity or, if the separator is 
installed, splitting the oven into two smaller cavities, calculate 
the total annual energy consumption of the conventional oven(s) 
using the following equations:
    4.1.2.5.1 Conventional electric oven energy consumption. 
Calculate the total annual energy consumption, ETO, in 
kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and defined as:

ETO = EACO + EASC

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.007


is the average annual primary energy consumption for cooking, and 
where:

n = number of conventional ovens in the basic model or, if the 
cooking appliance is equipped with an oven separator, the number of 
oven cavity configurations.
ECO = annual primary energy consumption for cooking as 
determined in section 4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.008


is the average annual self-cleaning energy consumption,

Where:

n = number of self-cleaning conventional ovens in the basic model.
ESC = annual primary self-cleaning energy consumption as 
determined according to section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix.

    4.1.2.5.2 Conventional electric oven integrated energy 
consumption. Calculate the total integrated annual energy 
consumption, IETO, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and 
defined as:

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

Where

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.009


is the average annual primary energy consumption for cooking, and 
where:

n = number of conventional ovens in the basic model or, if the 
cooking appliance is equipped with an oven separator, the number of 
oven cavity configurations.
ECO = annual primary energy consumption for cooking as 
determined in section 4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.

[[Page 71927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.010

is the average annual self-cleaning energy consumption,

Where:

n = number of self-cleaning conventional ovens in the basic model.
ESC = annual primary self-cleaning energy consumption as 
determined according to section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix.
EOTLP = annual combined low-power mode energy consumption 
for the cooking appliance as determined in section 4.1.2.3 of this 
appendix.
EOF = fan-only mode energy consumption as measured in 
section 3.2.1.2 of this appendix.
NOE = representative number of annual conventional 
electric oven cooking cycles per year, which is equal to 219 cycles 
for a conventional electric oven without self-clean capability and 
204 cycles for a conventional electric oven with self-clean 
capability.

    4.1.2.5.3 Conventional gas oven energy consumption. Calculate 
the total annual gas energy consumption, ETOG, in kBtus 
(kJ) per year and defined as:

ETOG = EACO + EASC

Where:

EACO = average annual primary energy consumption for 
cooking in kBtus (kJ) per year and is calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.011


Where:

n = number of conventional ovens in the basic model or, if the 
cooking appliance is equipped with an oven separator, the number of 
oven cavity configurations.
ECO = annual primary energy consumption for cooking as 
determined in section 4.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.

and,

EASC = average annual self-cleaning energy consumption in 
kBtus (kJ) per year and is calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.012


Where:

n = number of self-cleaning conventional ovens in the basic model.
ESC = annual primary self-cleaning energy consumption as 
determined according to section 4.1.2.2.1 of this appendix.

    If the oven also uses electrical energy, calculate the total 
annual electrical energy consumption, ETOE, in kilowatt-
hours (kJ) per year and defined as:
ETOE = EASO + EAAS

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.013

is the average annual secondary energy consumption for cooking,

Where:

n = number of conventional ovens in the basic model or, if the 
cooking appliance is equipped with an oven separator, the number of 
oven cavity configurations.
ESO = annual secondary energy consumption for cooking of 
gas ovens as determined in section 4.1.2.1.2 of this appendix.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.014

is the average annual secondary self-cleaning energy consumption,

Where:

n = number of self-cleaning ovens in the basic model.
ESS = annual secondary self-cleaning energy consumption 
of gas ovens as determined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix.

    If the oven also uses electrical energy, also calculate the 
total integrated annual electrical energy consumption, 
IETOE, in kilowatt-hours (kJ) per year and defined as:

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

Where:

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.015

is the average annual secondary energy consumption for cooking,

Where:

n = number of conventional ovens in the basic model or, if the 
cooking appliance is equipped with an oven separator, the number of 
oven cavity configurations.
ESO = annual secondary energy consumption for cooking of 
gas ovens as determined in section 4.1.2.1.2 of this appendix.

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.016

is the average annual secondary self-cleaning energy consumption,

Where:

n = number of self-cleaning ovens in the basic model.
ESS = annual secondary self-cleaning energy consumption 
of gas ovens as determined in section 4.1.2.2.2 of this appendix.
EOTLP = annual combined low-power mode energy consumption 
as determined in section 4.1.2.3 of this appendix.
EOF = fan-only mode energy consumption as measured in 
section 3.2.1.2 of this appendix.
NOG = representative number of annual conventional gas 
oven cooking cycles per year, which is equal to 183 cycles for a 
conventional gas oven without self-clean capability and 197 cycles 
for a conventional gas oven with self-clean capability.
* * * * *
    4.1.3.2 Multiple conventional ovens and conventional ovens with 
an oven separator. If the cooking appliance includes more than one 
conventional oven or consists of a conventional oven equipped with 
an oven separator that allows for cooking using the entire oven 
cavity or, if the separator is installed, splitting the oven into 
two smaller cavities, calculate the cooking efficiency of the 
conventional oven(s), EffTO, using the following 
equation: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.017


Where:

n = number of conventional ovens in the cooking appliance or, if the 
cooking appliance is equipped with an oven separator, the number of 
oven cavity configurations.
EffAO = cooking efficiency of each oven determined 
according to section 4.1.3.1 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    4.1.4.1 Conventional oven energy factor. Calculate the energy 
factor, or the ratio of useful cooking energy output to the total 
energy input, RO, using the following equations: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.018

    For electric ovens,

Where:

OO = 29.3 kWh (105,480 kJ) per year, annual useful 
cooking energy output.
EAO = total annual energy consumption for electric ovens 
as determined in section 4.1.2.4.1 of this appendix.

    For gas ovens: 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.019
    

Where:

OO = 88.8 kBtu (93,684 kJ) per year, annual useful 
cooking energy output.
EAOG = total annual gas energy consumption for 
conventional gas ovens as determined in section 4.1.2.4.3 of this 
appendix.
EAOE = total annual electrical energy consumption for 
conventional gas ovens as determined in section 4.1.2.4.3 of this 
appendix.
Ke = 3.412 kBtu/kWh (3,600 kJ/kWh), conversion factor for 
kilowatt-hours to kBtus.

    4.1.4.2 Conventional oven integrated energy factor. Calculate 
the integrated energy factor, or the ratio of useful cooking energy 
output to the total integrated energy input, IRO, using 
the following equations: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.020

    For electric ovens,


[[Page 71928]]


Where:

OO = 29.3 kWh (105,480 kJ) per year, annual useful 
cooking energy output.
IEAO = total integrated annual energy consumption for 
electric ovens as determined in section 4.1.2.4.2 of this appendix.

    For gas ovens:

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.021
    

Where:

OO = 88.8 kBtu (93,684 kJ) per year, annual useful 
cooking energy output.
EAOG = total annual gas energy consumption for 
conventional gas ovens as determined in section 4.1.2.4.3 of this 
appendix.
IEAOE = total integrated annual electrical energy 
consumption for conventional gas ovens as determined in section 
4.1.2.4.3 of this appendix.
Ke = 3.412 kBtu/kWh (3,600 kJ/kWh), conversion factor for 
kilowatt-hours to kBtus.

    4.2 Conventional cooking top.
    4.2.1 Surface unit cooking efficiency.
    4.2.1.1 Electric surface unit cooking efficiency. Calculate the 
cooking efficiency, EffSU, of the electric surface unit 
or surface unit size setting under test, defined as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.022


Where:

WTB = measured weight of test block body, W2, 
W4, or W6 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, 
W5, or W7 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 Btus.
ECT = measured energy consumption, as determined 
according to section 3.2.2 of this appendix, expressed in watt-hours 
(kJ).

    4.2.1.2 Gas surface unit cooking efficiency. Calculate the 
cooking efficiency, EffSU, of the gas surface unit under 
test, defined as: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.023


Where:

WTB = measured weight of test block body, W4 
or W6, expressed in pounds (kg).
WB = measured weight of test block base, W5 or 
W7, expressed in pounds (kg).
Cp,TB, Cp,B, and TSU are the same 
as defined in section 4.2.1.1 of this appendix.

and,

E = (VCT 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 Btus.
H = either Hn or Hp, the heating value of the 
gas used in the test as specified in sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.3 of 
this appendix, expressed in Btus per standard cubic foot (kJ/L) of 
gas.

    4.2.1.3 Conventional cooking top cooking efficiency. Calculate 
the conventional cooking top cooking efficiency EffCT 
using the following equation: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.024


Where:

n = number of cooking top surface units tests. For a full-surface 
induction cooking top, n = 3.
EffSU = the efficiency determined during each surface 
unit test, as determined according to section 4.2.1.1 of this 
appendix or section 4.2.1.2 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    4.2.2.2.1 Annual cooking energy consumption. Calculate the 
annual energy consumption for cooking, ECC, in kBtus (kJ) 
per year for a gas cooking top, defined as: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.025


Where:

OCT = 527.6 kBtu (556,618 kJ) per year, annual useful 
cooking energy output.
EffCT = the gas cooking top efficiency as defined in 
Section 4.2.1.3.

    4.2.2.2.2 Total integrated annual energy consumption of a 
conventional gas cooking top. Calculate the total integrated annual 
energy consumption of a conventional gas cooking top, 
IECA, in kBtus (kJ) per year, defined as:

IECA = ECC + (ECTSO x Ke)

Where:

ECC = energy consumption for cooking as determined in 
section 4.2.2.2.1 of this appendix.
ECTSO = conventional cooking top combined low-power mode 
energy consumption = [(PIA x SIA) + 
(POM x SOM)] x K,

Where:

PIA = conventional cooking top inactive mode power, in 
watts, as measured in section 3.1.2.1.1 of this appendix.
POM = conventional cooking top off mode power, in watts, 
as measured in section 3.1.2.1.2 of this appendix.

    If the conventional cooking top has both inactive mode and off 
mode annual hours, SIA and SOM both equal 
4273.4;
    If the conventional cooking top has an inactive mode but no off 
mode, the inactive mode annual hours, SIA, is equal to 
8546.9, and the off mode annual hours, SOM, is equal to 
0;
    If the conventional cooking top has an off mode but no inactive 
mode, SIA is equal to 0, and SOM is equal to 
8546.9;

K = 0.001 kWh/Wh conversion factor for watt-hours to kilowatt-hours.
Ke = 3.412 kBtu/kWh (3,600 kJ/kWh), conversion factor for 
kilowatt-hours to kBtus.
* * * * *
    4.2.3.2 Conventional cooking top integrated energy factor. 
Calculate the integrated energy factor or ratio of useful cooking 
energy output for cooking to the total integrated energy input, 
IRCT, as follows:
    For electric cooking tops, 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.026
    

Where:

OCT = 173.1 kWh (623,160 kJ) per year, annual useful 
cooking energy output of cooking top.
IECA = total annual integrated energy consumption of 
cooking top determined according to section 4.2.2.1.2 of this 
appendix.

    For gas cooking tops, 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE14.027
    

Where:

OCT = 527.6 kBtu (556,618 kJ) per year, annual useful 
cooking energy output of cooking top.
IECA = total integrated annual energy consumption of 
cooking top determined according to section 4.2.2.2.2 of this 
appendix.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-28212 Filed 12-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P