Energy Conservation Program: Notification of Petition for Rulemaking, 24133-24144 [2023-07673]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2023–BT–TP–0006]
Energy Conservation Program:
Notification of Petition for Rulemaking
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of petition for
rulemaking; request for comment.
AGENCY:
On January 12, 2023, the
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) received
a petition from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) to
consider amendments to the
conventional cooking products test
procedure to allow a calculation in
place of certain testing provisions for
conventional cooking tops, clarify the
definition of the term specialty cooking
zone, clarify the equipment used to
measure electric coil heating element
diameter, and stay the effectiveness of
any mandatory use of the test
procedure. Through this notification,
DOE seeks comment on the petition, as
well as any data or information that
could be used in DOE’s determination
whether to grant the petition.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before May 19, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2023–BT–TP–0006.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2023–BT–TP–0006, by any of the
following methods:
Email: CookingProducts
Petition2023TP0006@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number and/or RIN
in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists
and transcripts (if a public meeting is
held), comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2023-BT-TP-0006. The docket web page
contains instructions on how to access
all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–5649. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Mail Stop GC–33, Forrestal Building,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0103.
Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email:
Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’),
5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among
other things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency shall
give an interested person the right to
petition for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE
received a petition from AHAM, as
described in this document and set forth
verbatim below,1 requesting that DOE
amend the testing provisions for
conventional cooking tops in it test
procedure for conventional cooking
products at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix I1 (‘‘appendix I1’’). In
announcing this petition for public
comment, DOE is seeking views on
whether it should grant the petition and
undertake a rulemaking to consider the
proposal contained in the petition. By
seeking comment on whether to grant
this petition, DOE takes no position at
this time regarding the merits of the
1 AHAM’s petition for rulemaking is available in
the docket at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2023-BT-TP-0006-0001.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24133
suggested rulemaking or the assertions
in AHAM’s petition.
In its petition, AHAM also requests
that DOE stay the effectiveness of any
mandatory use of the test procedure.
Regarding the mandatory use of the test
procedure for representations, under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(‘‘EPCA’’), effective 180 days after a test
procedure is published in the Federal
Register, representations regarding the
energy use or efficiency of the covered
product are required to be made in
accordance with the new or amended
test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2))
The final rule establishing appendix I1
was published on August 22, 2022,
which resulted in the February 20, 2023,
representations compliance date. 87 FR
51492. While DOE may grant individual
manufacturers an extension of up to 180
days based on a showing of undue
hardship (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)), DOE
cannot grant a blanket, indefinite
extension of this requirement.
Additionally, as specified in the Note
to appendix I1, use of the test procedure
is not required until the compliance
date of any energy conservation
standards for cooking tops. DOE is
currently conducting a rulemaking to
consider establishing energy
conservation standards for conventional
cooking products, including
conventional cooking tops. 88 FR 6818.
In its petition, AHAM also requests
that DOE consider amendments to the
appendix I1 test procedure to: (1) allow
a calculation to be used as an alternative
to the simmer portion of the test to
determine the energy consumption of
each cooking zone, (2) clarify the
definition of ‘‘specialty cooking zone’’
to more explicitly specify categories of
cooking zones and cooking products
that are considered to be specialty
cooking zones and therefore would be
excluded from the scope of the DOE test
procedure, and (3) clarify the equipment
used to measure the diameter of electric
coil heating elements. AHAM also
requests that DOE update its
enforcement regulations to require DOE
to use both the simmer test and AHAM’s
suggested alternative calculation
method in assessment and enforcement
testing to determine compliance with
energy conservation standards, should
DOE establish such standards.
In the docket for this petition, DOE
has provided a data summary for the
purposes of evaluating the merits of
establishing a calculation method as an
alternative to the simmer portion of the
test. In particular, the report provides
graphical representations of the
difference between measured results—
representing the appendix I1 test
conducted in its entirety—and results
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
24134
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
calculated using the alternative method
suggested by AHAM, for each cooking
zone for which data was available in
both AHAM’s and DOE’s test samples.
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of the petition, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) The test burden associated with
the simmer portion of the test procedure
for conventional cooking tops, including
third-party testing costs;
(2) Any additional test data of
conventional cooking tops tested to
appendix I1 that can be used to verify
the accuracy of the recommended
equations for determining the energy
use of individual cooking zones;
(3) The accuracy of the energy
consumption of each cooking zone that
would be determined using the
recommended calculation approach in
place of the simmer portion of the
cooking top test for the different cooking
top technologies (e.g., electric coil,
electric radiant, induction, and gas);
(4) In evaluating whether the
calculation approach maintains the
accuracy (i.e., representativeness) of the
full testing approach, the maximum
difference (in kilowatt-hours per year or
British thermal units per year, as
applicable, or as a percentage) between
the measured and calculated values for
a cooking zone’s energy consumption
that should be considered by DOE as
being indicative of the calculation
approach providing results that are
equally as representative as the full
testing approach;
(5) The extent to which portable
cooking tops can or should be tested
under appendix I1; and
(6) The extent to which cooking tops
with a downdraft fan that cannot be deenergized can or should be tested under
appendix I1.
Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by May 19, 2023,
comments and information regarding
this petition.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
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. If
this instruction is followed, 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 www.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
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website 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 www.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 www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to
www.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 postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies.
Faxes will not be accepted.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 two wellmarked 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. DOE will make its
own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
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).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of its process
for considering rulemaking petitions.
DOE actively encourages the
participation and interaction of the
public during the comment period.
Interactions with and between members
of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE
in determining how to proceed with a
petition. Anyone who wishes to be
added to DOE mailing list to receive
future notifications and information
about this petition should contact
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 586–6636 or via
email at
CookingProductsPetition2023TP0006@
ee.doe.gov.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on April 7, 2023, by
Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 7,
2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
Petition for Amendment
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
The Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM), on behalf of its
member companies, respectfully
petitions the Department of Energy
(DOE or Department) to amend the Test
Procedure for Conventional Cooking
Products, Appendix I1 to Subpart B of
Part 430 (Appendix I).2
AHAM has long supported DOE in its
efforts to save energy and ensure a
national marketplace through the
Appliance Standards Program.
Repeatable and reproducible test
procedures that are representative of
actual consumer use, but not unduly
burdensome to conduct, are an integral
part of the standards program. It is
essential that mandatory test procedures
be repeatable, reproducible,
representative, and not unduly
burdensome not just because these
qualities are statutory requirements
under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975, as amended
(EPCA), but also because of their
importance to the integrity and
effectiveness of the Appliance
Standards Program. That is why AHAM
is engaging in several standards
development efforts focused on
improving the energy test procedures,
including our task force—in which DOE
2 We note that this test procedure was finalized
via publication in the Federal Register on August
22, 2022. Department of Energy, Energy
Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Cooking
Products, Final Rule; Technical Correction; Docket
No. EERE–2021–BT–TP–0023; RIN 1904–AF18
(Aug. 22, 2022) (Cooking Product Test Procedure
Final Rule) and we incorporate this Petition into the
record on that docket. If the Department prefers to
respond to this Petition as a Petition to Reconsider
the final rule, AHAM does not object. We trust the
Department will determine the best regulatory
vehicle for this request.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
participates—on cooktop energy test
development.
AHAM has long been concerned that
the cooktop test procedure is too
burdensome and is not sufficiently
reproducible, thus not meeting the
EPCA test procedure criteria in 42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). With this petition,
AHAM makes minor proposals to
address primarily test burden.
Specifically, AHAM respectfully
requests that DOE amend the test
procedure to allow for a calculation as
an alternative to the simmer portion of
the test.3 AHAM also has identified a
couple of minor clarifications needed
related to specialty cooking zones and,
accordingly, requests that DOE amend
Appendix I1 to: (1) exclude models
where the cooktop cannot be measured
in a representative manner; and (2)
require that a caliper be used for the
measurement of open-coil cooking zone
diameter.
We believe that these changes, though
minor for DOE to make, will make a
significant difference in reducing test
burden and improving the clarity of the
test. We note that mandatory use of
Appendix I1 for representations of
energy use or energy efficiency of a
conventional cooking top is not required
until on or after February 20, 2023.
Additionally, to date, there are no
applicable energy conservation
standards for cooktops, which means
that this test procedure is not used to
demonstrate compliance with
applicable standards. DOE should,
however, quickly make the amendments
AHAM proposes in light of the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
proposed ENERGY STAR criteria and to
allow the alternative method and
additional clarity on other provisions to
be used to assess DOE’s recently
proposed standards.
I. Background
On August 18, 2020, in response to a
petition AHAM submitted, DOE
published a final rule withdrawing the
test procedure for conventional
cooktops.4 AHAM’s petition argued that
the gas test procedure was not
representative and that, for both gas and
electric cooktops, had such a high
degree of variation that it did not
produce accurate results. AHAM also
argued that the test procedure was
3 Additionally, we ask that DOE update its
enforcement regulations to require DOE to use both
the physical simmer test and the alternative
calculation method in assessment and enforcement
testing before making a determination of noncompliance.
4 Department of Energy, Energy Conservation
Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products;
Final Rule; 85 FR 50757 (Aug. 18, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24135
unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE
withdrew the test procedure because
test data on the record demonstrated
that the test procedure for cooktops
yielded inconsistent results. DOE
determined that the inconsistency in
results showed the results to be
unreliable that it was unduly
burdensome to leave that test procedure
in place without further study to resolve
inconsistencies.5
To address issues raised in our
petition, AHAM convened a Task Force
to author updated industry standards
AHAM ECT–1 and GCT–1. The Task
Force began monthly meetings in April
of 2021 and DOE and its contractor,
Guidehouse, along with efficiency
advocate representatives are
participants in that effort. The Task
Force’s goal was (and remains) to
develop cooktop test procedures for gas
and electric cooktops that are
repeatable, reproducible, representative,
and accurate. AHAM’s desire was to
work quickly to complete this work
together with other stakeholders and
present it to DOE for incorporation by
reference as the new DOE test
procedure.
On November 4, 2021, DOE published
a notice of proposed rulemaking
(November 2021 NOPR) in which DOE
proposed to re-establish a conventional
cooking top test procedure. See 86 FR
60974. DOE proposed to adopt, with
significant modifications, the latest
version of the relevant consensus
standard published by the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC),
Standard 60350–2 (Edition 2.0 2017–
08), ‘‘Household electric cooking
appliances—Part 2: Hobs—Methods for
measuring performance’’ (IEC 60350–
2:2017). The modifications included
adapting the test method to gas cooking
tops, offering an optional method for
burden reduction, normalizing the
energy use of each test cycle, adding
measurement of standby mode and off
mode energy use, altering certain test
conditions such as starting water
temperature, and adding specificity to
certain provisions. Id.
The November 2021 NOPR also
presented the results of an initial round
robin test program initiated in January
2020 (2020 Round Robin). The purpose
of the 2020 Round Robin was to
investigate further the IEC water heating
approach and the concerns AHAM
raised in its petition that led to the
withdrawal of the prior test procedure.
Id. at 60979–80. The comment period
for the November 2021 NOPR was
initially set to close on January 3, 2022.
DOE, however, published a notice of
5 Id.
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
at 50760.
19APP1
24136
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
data availability on December 16, 2021
(December 2021 NODA), in which DOE
announced that it had published the
results of a second round robin test
program initiated in May 2021 (2021
Round Robin) and extended the
comment period for the November 2021
NOPR until January 18, 2022. See 86 FR
71406.
AHAM submitted comments in
response to the November 2021 NOPR
and December 2021 NODA stating DOE
had not yet provided sufficient support
for its proposed test procedure to
demonstrate that it meets the statutory
requirements for a mandatory test
procedure. AHAM argued that the
burden, repeatability, and
reproducibility issues were still so
significant that the proposed test
procedure threatened the integrity of the
Appliance Standards Program. And
AHAM’s research continued to show
that the test procedure DOE proposed,
though DOE attempted to improve it,
may not be representative for some
cooktops (especially gas). Moreover,
AHAM pointed out that DOE’s process
to develop the proposed test procedure
was fraught with the same problems that
plagued the last version of the test,
which DOE ended up withdrawing.
AHAM also highlighted its continued
concerns with lack of transparency in
the process used to develop this test
procedure, and argued that DOE’s
proposed rule was not adequately
supported by data (despite the fact that
AHAM—with DOE’s knowledge—was
actively working on obtaining data that
would be highly relevant to the
development of a cooktop test
procedure).
On March 16, 2022, per a request from
AHAM, DOE published full test data
that was previously presented only in
summary form in the December 2021
NODA. DOE indicated that it published
this data in response to AHAM’s request
to provide its full, raw data on the
record for stakeholder review, and
indicated it did so only after receiving
permission from applicable stakeholders
to publish their data in the docket. On
August 22, 2022, DOE adopted its
proposed rule as a new final test
procedure, 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix I1.
In parallel to this rulemaking activity,
AHAM’s cooktop test procedure task
force was working to address the issues
AHAM previously identified with the
test procedure. In fact, AHAM’s task
force continues to work. DOE, its
consultant (Guidehouse), and efficiency
advocates were, and continue to be,
participants in this effort. From August
2021 to November 2022 AHAM
completed two sets of testing at (1)
third-party test laboratories; and (2)
manufacturer test laboratories. The test
results support AHAM’s arguments that
DOE’s test procedure is not sufficiently
reproducible and is overly burdensome
to conduct.
Based on our extensive testing,
AHAM continues to believe that—
though some portions of the final test
procedure are an improvement on the
proposed test procedure—the test
continues to be unduly burdensome.
Our concerns about reproducibility have
also not been fully addressed and, thus,
we continue to have concerns about the
test’s accuracy as well. We recognize,
however, that the Department is under
significant political pressure and is
unlikely to take the time needed to fully
investigate and resolve those issues. As
a result, AHAM is submitting this
Petition targeting key areas in which we
believe the test procedure can be
improved to significantly decrease test
burden without negatively impacting
the test’s accuracy or representativeness.
These changes are not time-consuming
to introduce and, especially because
there is not yet an applicable standard,
we request that the Department
expeditiously consider and grant this
Petition. It is critical that changes be
made before mandatory use of the test
procedure is required and before a
second draft (and final version of) an
ENERGY STAR specification. Thus,
while DOE is reviewing these changes,
we ask that DOE stay the effectiveness
of any mandatory use of the test
procedure with regard to
representations and/or standards/
ENERGY STAR compliance.
II. The Cooktop Test Procedure Is
Unduly Burdensome To Conduct
DOE’s final rule estimated a thirdparty test laboratory cost of $4,100 to
conduct the test procedure for a single
cooking top, and an estimated 23.6
hours of technician time if the test were
conducted in-house. AHAM data,
however, demonstrates that this is a
significant underestimate.
DOE must acknowledge that cooking
tops are an attended product (i.e., for
safety reasons and due to the nature of
the test, they cannot be left unattended
by the test technician) and, thus, are
inherently more burdensome to test
than many other presently regulated
appliances. Even were the test time to
be equivalent in the number of hours to
other test procedures, qualitatively, the
test is more burdensome because those
hours require active technician time.
According to aggregated manufacturer
estimates, 70 to 75 percent of the
current test requires technician
interaction. This cannot be automated or
monitored electronically as can be done
for unattended appliances, like a
refrigerator for example.
To get a detailed look at the test
burden, AHAM collected member data
on active hours (i.e., those that require
the test technician to actively conduct
the test and/or attend the appliance
during the test) and total hours to
conduct the test (i.e., the active hours
plus the test hours during which the
appliance need not be attended). Table
1 below identifies the activities
included in ‘‘active’’ hours versus nonactive hours.
TABLE 1
Included in active hours
Excluded in active hours
Monitoring temperatures ...........................................................................
Adjusting controls .....................................................................................
Cool down period of unit.
Waiting for starting water temperature or ambient temperature to fall
within specifications.
Instances where getting to the turndown temperature takes a long time
and the technician steps away or multi-tasks.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Selecting and placing cookware ...............................................................
Determination of turndown temperature/simmer setting.
Unit setup and teardown.
Review of water temperature data to determine the type of test: Energy
Test Cycle (ETC), Minimum Above Threshold (MAT), or Maximum
Below Threshold (MBT).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
AHAM data shows the average active
hours for testing a 4-zone electric
cooking top to be 37.4 hours, and the
average active hours for testing a 5-zone
gas cooking top to be 43.6 hours.
Members estimated a total test time of
49.9 hours for a 4-zone electric cooking
top and 57.8 hours for a 5-zone gas
cooking top. This far exceeds DOE
estimates with active hours alone being
58 percent and 85 percent more time,
respectively. While the manufacturer
estimates may include a small learning
curve, AHAM data should not be
discounted for this reason. Learning and
training on this more involved test is
part of the burden and will happen
every time a new technician executes
this test method. And the consideration
of active test hours is an important one
because it means that the technician is
not as available to do other things
during the test as s/he would be for an
unattended appliance and a test that
requires less technician interaction and
monitoring.
In regards to (third-party) testing costs
per single cooking top, AHAM data
shows a cost 1.9 to 2.6 times more than
DOE’s estimate (approximately $7,900
to $10,800).
This allows the test result for each
model to maintain the same consumer
representativeness of the full physical
test. Given the limited technology
options available for increasing
efficiency for any of these product
types, it is unlikely that these
calculations will change significantly in
III. To Reduce Test Burden, DOE
Should Permit a Simmer Calculation
Option in the Test Procedure
Because of the challenges associated
with conducting the simmer portion of
Appendix I1 such as finding the correct
simmer settings for each cooking zone,
the simmer portion of the test adds
unnecessary procedural steps resulting
in significant test burden without
adding meaningfully to differentiating
the energy efficiency of individual
units.
To determine if a less burdensome
approach is possible, AHAM conducted
investigative testing on 18 cooking tops
from ten different manufacturers using
24137
third party testing laboratories and
testing per Appendix I1 as written. In
addition, AHAM collected internal test
data from three different manufacturers
who conducted their own in-house
testing, also using Appendix I1 as
written. Using this data, AHAM
developed a simmer calculation for each
type of cooking top (electric coil,
electric radiant, induction and gas) that
is accurate and reliable and with this
Petition we are asking DOE tom include
it as an alternative in Appendix I1.
The calculation would require that
each cooking zone be tested at the
maximum setting until water reaches 90
°C. The energy consumption to reach 90
°C is then entered into the relevant
simmer calculation for a final result that
includes the simulated energy
consumed during a physical simmer
test. Major steps of a test using the
simmer calculation are summarized in
the graphic below:
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
the coming years. And even if changes
are needed, manufacturers could seek
guidance or waivers as needed.
TABLE 2
Proposed simmer equation
Electric Coil ...............................................................................................
Electric Radiant ........................................................................................
Induction ...................................................................................................
Gas ...........................................................................................................
The below chart shows the r-squared
value by product type for each simmer
calculation equation. As these values
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
E
E
E
E
=
=
=
=
1.43E90¥0.02Prated¥4.74.
1.31E90¥9.02.
1.47E90¥4.63.
1.16E90 + 488.12.
indicate, the alternative calculations
AHAM proposes are highly correlated to
the tested values and are, thus excellent
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
approximations of conducting the
physical test. Thus, DOE should include
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
EP19AP23.003</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Cooking top product type
24138
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
these equations as options in the test
procedure.
TABLE 3
Simmer calculation equation
R-squared value
Cooking top product type
Electric Coil ................................................................................................................................................................
Electric Radiant ..........................................................................................................................................................
Induction ....................................................................................................................................................................
Gas ............................................................................................................................................................................
plot is not shown because it is a multivariable equation).
EP19AP23.005</GPH>
shown below to visually show the high
degree of correlation between tested
values and calculated values. (A coil
(98.9%)
(99.9%)
(99.6%)
(97.4%)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
EP19AP23.004</GPH>
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Graphic representations of simmer
calculations, and the data points that are
used to create the calculations, are
0.9893
0.9988
0.9964
0.9744
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
AHAM believes each product-type’s
simmer calculation equation will get
stronger with the inclusion of DOE’s
round robin dataset (improving the Rsquared values further). To make these
calculations stronger (based on more
data points), DOE should release the
raw, second-by-second, data of its own
testing. AHAM has repeatedly requested
that data both as part of its task force
work with DOE and on the record,6 but
DOE has yet to provide it. Including that
data will serve to improve the
alternative calculations making them
even more accurate. In the interest of
improving accuracy even further,
AHAM will provide our raw data
confidentially to Guidehouse instead.
All data used in developing the simmer
calculations will be included. We hope
this will allow Guidehouse to update
the equations we propose based on a
larger data set given that we have not
been able to do so without DOE’s data.
Due to the high correlation between
the simmer calculation and the simmer
test, AHAM requests that DOE amend
the cooking top test procedure to allow
manufacturers to use the simmer
calculation as a replacement for the
simmer portion of the test procedure.
This would allow manufacturers to
conduct a simmer calculation or a
physical simmer test.
24139
AHAM strongly urges DOE to amend
the test procedure to include this
alternate calculation method because it
will significantly reduce test burden for
manufacturers. If DOE believes that the
proposed alternative calculation
method’s variation is too high, AHAM
submits that the calculation is well
correlated to the test results and thus, if
the calculation variation is too
significant, so too is the tested variation.
The calculation method allows
equivalence in variation, but with lower
test burden. Table 4 identifies each part
of the DOE test procedure that was
conducted during active mode AHAM
Location 2 investigative testing.
TABLE 4
B ..............................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
Energy test ................................................................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
Energy test ................................................................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
Energy test ................................................................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
Energy test ................................................................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
Energy test ................................................................................
Burner rating ..............................................................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
D ..............................................
G ..............................................
K ..............................................
M ..............................................
6 See AHAM Supplemental Comments on DOE’s
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for
Cooking Products; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
and Notification of Data Availability; Docket No.
EERE–2021–BT–TP–0023; RIN 1904–AF18 (July 19,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Number of times
conducted—simmer
calculation
16
4
8
30
4
6
19
4
8
21
5
9
13
4
8
4
14
4
2022), available at www.regulations.gov/comment/
EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0023.
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
4
4
0
0
EP19AP23.006</GPH>
Part of test
C ..............................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Number of times
conducted—
full DOE test
Unit
24140
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—Continued
Unit
N ..............................................
O ..............................................
P ..............................................
R ..............................................
Total ..................................
Number of times
conducted—
full DOE test
Part of test
Number of times
conducted—simmer
calculation
Energy test ................................................................................
Burner rating ..............................................................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
Energy test ................................................................................
Burner rating ..............................................................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
Energy test ................................................................................
Burner rating ..............................................................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
Energy test ................................................................................
Burner rating ..............................................................................
Pre-selection ..............................................................................
Overshoot ..................................................................................
Energy test ................................................................................
8
5
28
5
10
4
15
4
8
4
13
4
8
4
12
8
8
4
5
0
0
5
4
0
0
4
4
0
0
4
4
0
0
4
....................................................................................................
329
63
The total number of test parts would
be reduced by 81 percent if a simmer
calculation is used.
Importantly, the simmer calculation
meets DOE’s criteria as described in the
final rule. DOE stated that in order to
ensure that the test method is
representative of consumer usage, any
alternative method would need to
provide an estimated energy
consumption specific to the
conventional cooking top model under
test, rather than yielding an
approximate value by means of a
generic approach that applies equally
for all models. Any such alternative
method would need to produce
equivalent estimated energy
consumption results and associated
product rankings as the physical test
procedure established in Appendix I1.7
DOE’s criteria for a simmer calculation
and the manner in which AHAM’s
proposal meet them are as follows.
1. Produce equivalent product
rankings.
We note that, in order to evaluate
equivalent product rankings between
the proposed alternative calculation
method and the full physical test, there
must be consistent product rankings for
the full physical tests. The full physical
test procedure does not produce
consistent product rankings. For
example, the same gas units rank
differently when tested at different labs.
TABLE 5—INTEGRATED ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION (EIAEC) REPRODUCIBILITY—MEASURED
Type
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
M ................................................
N (avg) .......................................
O ................................................
P ................................................
Q (avg) ......................................
R ................................................
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Location 1
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
...................................................
Since the full test, including simmer,
produces inconsistent product rankings,
it is not reasonable to expect
consistency, nor does it make sense to
require the alternative calculation to be
equally inconsistent.
2. Be based on test data from multiple
labs.
The simmer equations AHAM
proposes in this Petition are based on
testing a two third-party laboratories
and three manufacturer laboratories.
3. Be representative of tested
simmering period on multiple types of
products.
Rank
(electric, gas)
1473.7
1397.2
1471.4
1603.8
1345.3
1522.5
The simmer equations AHAM
proposes in this Petition are based on a
number of models using different
technologies including coil, radiant,
induction, and gas heating elements.
AHAM proposes that a unique
equation be established for each surface
cooking type based on the underlying
physics—i.e., stored energy within the
elements, speed of heating the water
resulting in heat lost to the
environment, and thermal coupling
between the pot and surface cooking
type.
Location 2
4
2
3
6
1
5
1443.3
1385.4
1465.6
1531.5
1330.3
1535.8
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3
2
4
5
1
6
TABLE 6
Type
Coil ........................................
Radiant .................................
Induction ...............................
Gas .......................................
Models used
in developing
calculation
5
6
5
19
4. Include data from products that
cover a wide range of available surface
cooking types.
It is unclear what technology options
DOE is looking to capture, but due to
the high number of manufacturers that
7 Cooking Product Test Procedure Final Rule at
51530.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Rank
(electric, gas)
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
24141
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
submitted units or data, we are
confident that a range of designs are
considered within the calculation.
TABLE 7
Manufacturers
represented
in developing
calculation
Type
Coil .................................................................................................................................................
Radiant ...........................................................................................................................................
Induction .........................................................................................................................................
Gas .................................................................................................................................................
5. Produce equivalent energy
consumption results when compared to
the results produced by the full test.
The difference between physical test
results and calculated results using the
equations AHAM proposes in this
Petition is small. As an example, the
below table evaluates fully tested versus
calculated results at one of the thirdparty testing locations in AHAM’s
testing. The average difference was only
3
5
5
7
Range of rated cooking zone
power for units in AHAM
investigative testing
675–2,600 W.
1,200–3,300 W.
1,400–3,600 W.
5,000–19,500 Btu.
about one percent, which is
insignificant, particularly when
compared to the variation in the full
test. Table 8 below demonstrates this
point.
TABLE 8—PERCENT DIFFERENCE EIAEC—MEASURED VS. PREDICTED
Location 1
(%)
Type
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Unit B (avg) ................................................................................
Unit C ..........................................................................................
Unit D ..........................................................................................
Unit G .........................................................................................
Unit K ..........................................................................................
Unit M .........................................................................................
Unit N ..........................................................................................
Unit O .........................................................................................
Unit P ..........................................................................................
Unit Q .........................................................................................
Unit R ..........................................................................................
Average ......................................................................................
6. Capture differences between
simmer strategies.
Based on discussions with
Guidehouse during our task force
efforts, AHAM understands ‘‘simmer
strategies’’ to mean some combination of
control type, power levels, power steps,
and safety features that a model uses to
set, control and maintain power levels.
Twelve electric samples were tested at
third-party labs; this data was used in
developing the simmer equations. Of
those samples, AHAM has confirmed
that five use an infinite switch control
and four use a software-based control.
For gas units, see points three and four
above showing the large number of
models and manufacturers considered.
(Note that information on controls was
not provided for all units in AHAM’s
sample.)
As a supplement to this petition, we
are confidentially submitting to
Guidehouse raw test data that supports
our arguments in this Petition and
supports DOE amending Appendix I1 to
include an alternative simmer
calculation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
Coil .............................................................................................
Coil .............................................................................................
Radiant .......................................................................................
Radiant .......................................................................................
Induction .....................................................................................
Gas .............................................................................................
Gas .............................................................................................
Gas .............................................................................................
Gas .............................................................................................
Gas .............................................................................................
Gas .............................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
Additionally, AHAM requests that
DOE add enforcement provisions that
require DOE to use both simmer
methods (the calculation and physical
test) before making a finding of noncompliance with energy conservation
standards (and ideally, before
proceeding beyond assessment testing).
A similar enforcement strategy is
already in place for refrigerators.8 DOE
identifies compliance by using a
calculation, but can also audit by testing
the unit using the test procedure.
IV. AHAM Proposes Two Minor
Clarifications
Separate from our proposal to permit
a calculation alternative to the simmer
portion of the test procedure, AHAM
also proposes additional minor changes
to improve the clarity of the test
procedure and we ask that DOE make
8 See 10 CFR 429.134(b)(2) (‘‘The test described
in section 5.2(b) of the applicable test procedure for
refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers in appendix A
to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 shall be used for
all units of a basic model before DOE makes a
determination of noncompliance with respect to the
basic model.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3.3
0.3
0.0
¥1.3
1.7
0.0
¥4.7
¥1.3
¥3.7
¥2.5
¥3.9
¥1.1
these changes before the test procedure
becomes mandatory to demonstrate
compliance with standards/ENERGY
STAR specifications, prior to required
use of the test procedure to support
energy related representations. It would
also be helpful to have these
improvements made in time to allow
use of them in assessing amended
standards.
A. Definition of Specialty Cooking
Zones
The test procedure excludes specialty
cooking zones. In the final rule, DOE
noted that ‘‘. . . a cooking zone
designed for use only with non-circular
cookware would not be expected to be
used with any regularity, such that
measuring its energy use would not be
representative of the energy use of a
cooking top during a representative
average consumer use cycle . . .’’ 9 The
final rule also states, ‘‘. . . a heating
element on an electric cooking top with
a diameter smaller than 100 mm (3.9
inches) would likely not be able to heat
9 Cooktop
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
Test Procedure Final Rule at 51522.
19APP1
24142
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
water to 90 °C. As such, it would likely
be excluded from testing because it
would be a specialty cooking zone (e.g.,
a warming plate or zone).’’ 10
The test procedure excludes noncooking top portions of combined
products. Appendix I1 covers
conventional cooking tops and
conventional cooking top components
of combined products, where a
combined product is defined as a
conventional range, a microwave/
conventional cooking top, a microwave/
conventional oven, and a microwave/
conventional range. DOE does not
require that the microwave and cooking
top be tested together. However, DOE
does not provide the same distinction
for products which are a combination of
a range hood and a conventional
cooking top. AHAM requests that DOE
be consistent and exclude models where
it is not possible to take a representative
measurement of the cooking top only.
Additionally, AHAM believes that
more detail is needed to achieve DOE’s
goal of excluding cooking zones which
are not regularly used and do not match
the scope of the test procedure—i.e.,
boiling water. Table 9 shows the
difference between AHAM’s proposal
and current Appendix I1.
TABLE 9—SPECIALTY COOKING ZONE
Appendix I1
AHAM proposal
Warming Plate ....................................................
Gas cooking zones, rated 5,600 Btu/h or less, intended to hold food warm.
Electric cooking zones, rated 350W or less, intended to hold food warm.
Note 1: Excluding 5,600 Btu/h or less may change the gas simmer equation proposed in this
petition. If DOE decides to exclude these smaller cooking zones, AHAM can assist in providing an updated simmer calculation.
Note 2: The 350W is taken from the safety standard UL 858.
Cooking zones designed for use with non-circular cookware, such as bridge burners, oval
burners, grills, and griddles as designated in manufacturer instructions.
Cooking zones designed for use with non-flat-bottom cookware such as wok burners as designated in manufacturer instructions.
Portable appliances for cooking, grilling and similar functions.
Cooking tops or ranges with a downdraft fan that cannot be de-energized by the appliance
control according to manufacturer instructions.
Grill, griddle, or any cooking zone that is designed for use only with non-circular
cookware, such as a bridge zone.
B. Measurement of Diameter of Open
Coil Heating Elements
For electric units, DOE requires
measurement of the cooking zone
diameter to determine cookware size
and water load. Furthermore, ‘‘. . . DOE
clarifies that open coil heating elements
are to be treated as circular, and that the
largest diameter is used . . .’’
DOE does not adequately consider the
method of measurement for open coil
heating elements. These types of
elements have rounded edges. If
measured with a ruler, the rounded
edges are unaccounted for, a smaller
diameter is measured, and smaller
cookware/water load may be required.
But if a caliper were used, that would
account for rounded edges, measuring a
larger diameter, and thus larger
cookware/water load may be needed.
Currently, the test procedure appears to
permit either measurement tool. AHAM
proposes that DOE specify which
measurement tool should be used either
in the test procedure itself or through
test procedure guidance.
This is a small change for DOE to
make in the procedure, but it is an
important and significant one in terms
of accuracy. A small difference in
cooking zone diameter can make a large
difference in the final energy
consumption as demonstrated by test
results from UUT_B in AHAM’s
investigative testing. This unit has two
cooking zones where the measurement
method changes the water load.
TABLE 10
Measurement method
Ruler
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Measured Diameter (mm) ........................................................................................................................................
Required Cookware Diameter (mm) ........................................................................................................................
Required Water Load (g) .........................................................................................................................................
Energy, ECTE (Wh) ..................................................................................................................................................
As shown in the table above, a one
percent difference in diameter
measurement produces a 5.85 percent
difference in measured energy
consumption due to the change in
required test water load.
DOE also had this issue for the coil
units in its second round robin.11 Lab A
measured elements 2 and 4 at 188mm
resulting in a 180mm pot. Labs C and
E measured them to be 190–191
10 Id.
at 51505.
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2021-BT-TP-0023-0019.
11 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
resulting in a 210mm pot. This resulted
in a shift in annual energy from 179.2
to 191.3, or 6.75 percent. Burner energy
was 20–30 percent different due to a one
to two percent change in diameter
measurement.
To remedy this, AHAM requests that
DOE clarify 3.1.1.1.1 of the test
procedure to require use of calipers,
which provide a more accurate
measurement than a ruler. We propose
12 Summary of Second Round Robin Testing,
testing according to the updated procedure
proposed in the November 4, 2021 NOPR, at
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
188
180
1,500
466.01
Caliper
190
210
2,050
440.27
the following text: ‘‘Open-coil cooking
zones shall be measured with calipers at
the largest outside diameter.’’
Alternatively, DOE could issue guidance
to clarify that calipers should be used.
V. The DOE Test Procedure Continues
To Be Highly Variable
In AHAM’s view, data from DOE’s
second round robin still shows
unacceptable levels of variation.12
Taking a closer at DOE’s gas cooking top
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP0023-0004.
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
units test results, Lab A consistently
measures lower than Labs B and C. On
average, Lab A measures 7.9 percent
lower than Labs B and C. This is shown
24143
in Table 11 and the shift in mean values
between labs is shown in Table 12.
TABLE 11—AVERAGE ANNUAL ENERGY USE
Unit #
6
7
8
9
.................
.................
.................
.................
Certified Lab A
(kBtu)
Type
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
................................
................................
................................
................................
Certified Lab B
(kBtu)
982
1,313
1,438
1,494
Certified Lab C
(kBtu)
1,096
1,428
1,554
1,593
Overall average
(kBtu)
Lab E
1,106
1,339
1,556
1,614
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,061
1,360
1,516
1,567
TABLE 12—SHIFT IN MEAN VALUES
Lab A vs. Lab B
(%)
Unit #
Type
6 .............................................................
7 .............................................................
8 .............................................................
9 .............................................................
Average ..................................................
Gas ........................................................
Gas ........................................................
Gas ........................................................
Gas ........................................................
................................................................
Variation of this nature will have
serious consequences when it comes to
future DOE compliance and
enforcement efforts. Because of the
Lab A vs. Lab C
(%)
11.9
7.5
6.4
7.0
8.2
differences in potential test results
depending on the laboratory conducting
the test, manufacturers will need to
build in a buffer or ‘‘safety factor’’ of
Lab B vs. Lab C
(%)
12.5
1.9
7.0
8.7
7.5
0.6
5.5
0.5
1.6
2.1
over ten percent on average (unit 6, Lab
C vs. Lab A shows a 12.5 percent
variation) to help ensure compliance
with applicable standards.
TABLE 13—PERCENTAGE OF (TESTED) UNIT MEETING COMPLIANCE DURING AUDIT TESTING
Typical
allowable shift
used by third
party labs
(3%)
Margin to limit
3 Percent .....................................................................................................................................................
5 Percent .....................................................................................................................................................
8 Percent .....................................................................................................................................................
10 Percent ...................................................................................................................................................
The variation could also mean that,
for example, if a manufacturer uses Lab
B or C for certification and DOE uses
Lab A for compliance and enforcement
testing, DOE’s results could be an
overstated efficiency as the test unit(s)
will have drifted away from their
certified values due to variation in mass
production. This could result in false
findings of non-compliance. The
analysis below uses DOE’s round robin
testing results and statistical simulation
(as presently required under 10 CFR 429
Subpart C) to show that this variation is
97.5
100
100
100
Average
shift in
DOE testing
(8%)
11.5
52
97.5
100
so significant, units with as much as
five percent higher energy consumption
could still meet a future minimum
energy conservation standard level and
remain compliant when tested by DOE.
TABLE 14—PERCENTAGE OF (TESTED) UNIT MEETING COMPLIANCE DURING AUDIT TESTING
Typical
allowable shift
used by third
party labs
(3%)
Energy value above DOE threshold
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3 Percent .....................................................................................................................................................
5 Percent .....................................................................................................................................................
8 Percent .....................................................................................................................................................
10 Percent ...................................................................................................................................................
We continue to believe that this
variation threatens the credibility of the
Appliance Standards Program and
means that the cooktop test procedure
DOE finalized does not produce
sufficiently accurate results. Thus, we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
continue to question whether the test
procedure truly meets EPCA’s criteria.
Although AHAM does not have a
proposal at this time for improving
further the test’s variation, we do
believe DOE can reduce the test’s
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
95
76
18
1
Average
shift in
DOE testing
(8%)
100
100
99
86
burden so it is not overly burdensome
to conduct. Specifically, AHAM asks
that DOE simplify the test by removing
the requirement to perform a physical
simmer test and providing, as an option,
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
24144
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2023 / Proposed Rules
a calculation alternative to the simmer
portion of the test.
VI. Conclusion
Based on the above reasoning and
justification, combined with the data
AHAM will submit with this petition,
AHAM respectfully requests that DOE
amend the test procedure to:
1. Allow for a calculation as an
alternative to the simmer portion of the
test; 13
2. Exclude models where the cooktop
cannot be measured in a representative
manner; and
3. Require measurement of open-coil
cooking zone diameter using a caliper.
Although we understand that DOE is
working to consider energy conservation
standards for cooktops, we do not
expect that making these relatively
minor changes to the test procedure will
impact DOE’s ability to proceed with its
other rulemaking plans. Mandatory use
of appendix I1 for representations of
energy use or energy efficiency of a
conventional cooking top is not required
until on or after February 20, 2023. We
also note that, to date, there are no
applicable energy conservation
standards for cooktops, which means
that this test procedure is not used to
demonstrate compliance with
applicable standards. Nevertheless, we
ask DOE to move quickly to make these
changes because the date for using the
test procedure for representations is
quickly approaching and EPA is moving
quickly to develop an ENERGY STAR
specification that uses DOE’s test
procedure. Moreover, these changes will
be helpful in assessing DOE’s proposed
amended energy conservation
standards.
AHAM appreciates the opportunity to
submit this Petition to Amend the
Cooktop Test Procedure and would be
glad to discuss these matters in more
detail should you so request. We
respectfully request that DOE urgently
review and act upon this petition as it
is critical that changes be made before
mandatory use of the test procedure is
required. Thus, while DOE is reviewing
these changes, we ask that DOE stay the
effectiveness of that requirement.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Cleary,
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
/s
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs.
About AHAM: AHAM represents
more than 150 member companies that
13 Additionally, we ask that DOE update its
enforcement regulations to require DOE to use both
the physical simmer test and the alternative
calculation method in assessment and enforcement
testing before making a determination of noncompliance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:53 Apr 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
manufacture 90% of the major, portable
and floor care appliances shipped for
sale in the U.S. Home appliances are the
heart of the home, and AHAM members
provide safe, innovative, sustainable
and efficient products that enhance
consumers’ lives. The home appliance
industry is a significant segment of the
economy, measured by the
contributions of home appliance
manufacturers, wholesalers, and
retailers to the U.S. economy. In all, the
industry drives nearly $200 billion in
economic output throughout the U.S.
and manufactures products with a
factory shipment value of more than $50
billion.
[FR Doc. 2023–07673 Filed 4–18–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2023–0933; Project
Identifier MCAI–2022–00554–T]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type
Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada
Limited Model DHC–8–401 and –402
airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports that the saddle
washer (radius filler) for the front and
rear spar joints may have been
incorrectly manufactured for several
years. This proposed AD would require
inspecting the horizontal stabilizer to
vertical joint for gaps and bending of the
saddle washer and adjacent washers,
and replacing parts if necessary. The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by June 5, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA–2023–0933; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For service information identified
in this NPRM, contact De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8
Series Customer Response Centre, 5800
Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario,
L4W 5K9, Canada; telephone 855–310–
1013 or 647–277–5820; email: thd@
dehavilland.com; website:
dehavilland.com.
• You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 206–231–3195.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yaser Osman, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone 516–228–7300; email
9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2023–0933; Project Identifier
MCAI–2022–00554–T’’ at the beginning
of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of
the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend the proposal
because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business
Information (CBI) as described in the
following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal
information you provide. The agency
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24133-24144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07673]
[[Page 24133]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006]
Energy Conservation Program: Notification of Petition for
Rulemaking
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of petition for rulemaking; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 12, 2023, the Department of Energy (``DOE'')
received a petition from the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (``AHAM'') to consider amendments to the conventional
cooking products test procedure to allow a calculation in place of
certain testing provisions for conventional cooking tops, clarify the
definition of the term specialty cooking zone, clarify the equipment
used to measure electric coil heating element diameter, and stay the
effectiveness of any mandatory use of the test procedure. Through this
notification, DOE seeks comment on the petition, as well as any data or
information that could be used in DOE's determination whether to grant
the petition.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before May 19, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006, by any of the
following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact disc (``CD''), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a
public meeting is held), comments, and other supporting documents/
materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop
EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''),
5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency
shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance,
amendment, or repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE received a
petition from AHAM, as described in this document and set forth
verbatim below,\1\ requesting that DOE amend the testing provisions for
conventional cooking tops in it test procedure for conventional cooking
products at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1 (``appendix I1'').
In announcing this petition for public comment, DOE is seeking views on
whether it should grant the petition and undertake a rulemaking to
consider the proposal contained in the petition. By seeking comment on
whether to grant this petition, DOE takes no position at this time
regarding the merits of the suggested rulemaking or the assertions in
AHAM's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AHAM's petition for rulemaking is available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its petition, AHAM also requests that DOE stay the effectiveness
of any mandatory use of the test procedure. Regarding the mandatory use
of the test procedure for representations, under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (``EPCA''), effective 180 days after a test procedure
is published in the Federal Register, representations regarding the
energy use or efficiency of the covered product are required to be made
in accordance with the new or amended test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(c)(2)) The final rule establishing appendix I1 was published on
August 22, 2022, which resulted in the February 20, 2023,
representations compliance date. 87 FR 51492. While DOE may grant
individual manufacturers an extension of up to 180 days based on a
showing of undue hardship (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)), DOE cannot grant a
blanket, indefinite extension of this requirement.
Additionally, as specified in the Note to appendix I1, use of the
test procedure is not required until the compliance date of any energy
conservation standards for cooking tops. DOE is currently conducting a
rulemaking to consider establishing energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking products, including conventional cooking tops. 88
FR 6818.
In its petition, AHAM also requests that DOE consider amendments to
the appendix I1 test procedure to: (1) allow a calculation to be used
as an alternative to the simmer portion of the test to determine the
energy consumption of each cooking zone, (2) clarify the definition of
``specialty cooking zone'' to more explicitly specify categories of
cooking zones and cooking products that are considered to be specialty
cooking zones and therefore would be excluded from the scope of the DOE
test procedure, and (3) clarify the equipment used to measure the
diameter of electric coil heating elements. AHAM also requests that DOE
update its enforcement regulations to require DOE to use both the
simmer test and AHAM's suggested alternative calculation method in
assessment and enforcement testing to determine compliance with energy
conservation standards, should DOE establish such standards.
In the docket for this petition, DOE has provided a data summary
for the purposes of evaluating the merits of establishing a calculation
method as an alternative to the simmer portion of the test. In
particular, the report provides graphical representations of the
difference between measured results--representing the appendix I1 test
conducted in its entirety--and results
[[Page 24134]]
calculated using the alternative method suggested by AHAM, for each
cooking zone for which data was available in both AHAM's and DOE's test
samples.
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of the petition, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) The test burden associated with the simmer portion of the test
procedure for conventional cooking tops, including third-party testing
costs;
(2) Any additional test data of conventional cooking tops tested to
appendix I1 that can be used to verify the accuracy of the recommended
equations for determining the energy use of individual cooking zones;
(3) The accuracy of the energy consumption of each cooking zone
that would be determined using the recommended calculation approach in
place of the simmer portion of the cooking top test for the different
cooking top technologies (e.g., electric coil, electric radiant,
induction, and gas);
(4) In evaluating whether the calculation approach maintains the
accuracy (i.e., representativeness) of the full testing approach, the
maximum difference (in kilowatt-hours per year or British thermal units
per year, as applicable, or as a percentage) between the measured and
calculated values for a cooking zone's energy consumption that should
be considered by DOE as being indicative of the calculation approach
providing results that are equally as representative as the full
testing approach;
(5) The extent to which portable cooking tops can or should be
tested under appendix I1; and
(6) The extent to which cooking tops with a downdraft fan that
cannot be de-energized can or should be tested under appendix I1.
Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by May 19,
2023, comments and information regarding this petition.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.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. If this instruction is followed, 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 www.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 www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website 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 www.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 www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.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 postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
Faxes will not 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 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. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
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).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
its process for considering rulemaking petitions. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period. Interactions with and between members of the public
provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in
determining how to proceed with a petition. Anyone who wishes to be
added to DOE mailing list to receive future notifications and
information about this petition should contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 7,
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting
[[Page 24135]]
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That
document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
Petition for Amendment
The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), on behalf
of its member companies, respectfully petitions the Department of
Energy (DOE or Department) to amend the Test Procedure for Conventional
Cooking Products, Appendix I1 to Subpart B of Part 430 (Appendix I).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that this test procedure was finalized via
publication in the Federal Register on August 22, 2022. Department
of Energy, Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Cooking
Products, Final Rule; Technical Correction; Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-
TP-0023; RIN 1904-AF18 (Aug. 22, 2022) (Cooking Product Test
Procedure Final Rule) and we incorporate this Petition into the
record on that docket. If the Department prefers to respond to this
Petition as a Petition to Reconsider the final rule, AHAM does not
object. We trust the Department will determine the best regulatory
vehicle for this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM has long supported DOE in its efforts to save energy and
ensure a national marketplace through the Appliance Standards Program.
Repeatable and reproducible test procedures that are representative of
actual consumer use, but not unduly burdensome to conduct, are an
integral part of the standards program. It is essential that mandatory
test procedures be repeatable, reproducible, representative, and not
unduly burdensome not just because these qualities are statutory
requirements under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as
amended (EPCA), but also because of their importance to the integrity
and effectiveness of the Appliance Standards Program. That is why AHAM
is engaging in several standards development efforts focused on
improving the energy test procedures, including our task force--in
which DOE participates--on cooktop energy test development.
AHAM has long been concerned that the cooktop test procedure is too
burdensome and is not sufficiently reproducible, thus not meeting the
EPCA test procedure criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). With this
petition, AHAM makes minor proposals to address primarily test burden.
Specifically, AHAM respectfully requests that DOE amend the test
procedure to allow for a calculation as an alternative to the simmer
portion of the test.\3\ AHAM also has identified a couple of minor
clarifications needed related to specialty cooking zones and,
accordingly, requests that DOE amend Appendix I1 to: (1) exclude models
where the cooktop cannot be measured in a representative manner; and
(2) require that a caliper be used for the measurement of open-coil
cooking zone diameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Additionally, we ask that DOE update its enforcement
regulations to require DOE to use both the physical simmer test and
the alternative calculation method in assessment and enforcement
testing before making a determination of non-compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that these changes, though minor for DOE to make, will
make a significant difference in reducing test burden and improving the
clarity of the test. We note that mandatory use of Appendix I1 for
representations of energy use or energy efficiency of a conventional
cooking top is not required until on or after February 20, 2023.
Additionally, to date, there are no applicable energy conservation
standards for cooktops, which means that this test procedure is not
used to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards. DOE should,
however, quickly make the amendments AHAM proposes in light of the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ENERGY STAR criteria and to
allow the alternative method and additional clarity on other provisions
to be used to assess DOE's recently proposed standards.
I. Background
On August 18, 2020, in response to a petition AHAM submitted, DOE
published a final rule withdrawing the test procedure for conventional
cooktops.\4\ AHAM's petition argued that the gas test procedure was not
representative and that, for both gas and electric cooktops, had such a
high degree of variation that it did not produce accurate results. AHAM
also argued that the test procedure was unduly burdensome to conduct.
DOE withdrew the test procedure because test data on the record
demonstrated that the test procedure for cooktops yielded inconsistent
results. DOE determined that the inconsistency in results showed the
results to be unreliable that it was unduly burdensome to leave that
test procedure in place without further study to resolve
inconsistencies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Department of Energy, Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Cooking Products; Final Rule; 85 FR 50757 (Aug. 18,
2020).
\5\ Id. at 50760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address issues raised in our petition, AHAM convened a Task
Force to author updated industry standards AHAM ECT-1 and GCT-1. The
Task Force began monthly meetings in April of 2021 and DOE and its
contractor, Guidehouse, along with efficiency advocate representatives
are participants in that effort. The Task Force's goal was (and
remains) to develop cooktop test procedures for gas and electric
cooktops that are repeatable, reproducible, representative, and
accurate. AHAM's desire was to work quickly to complete this work
together with other stakeholders and present it to DOE for
incorporation by reference as the new DOE test procedure.
On November 4, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(November 2021 NOPR) in which DOE proposed to re-establish a
conventional cooking top test procedure. See 86 FR 60974. DOE proposed
to adopt, with significant modifications, the latest version of the
relevant consensus standard published by the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Standard 60350-2 (Edition 2.0 2017-
08), ``Household electric cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for
measuring performance'' (IEC 60350-2:2017). The modifications included
adapting the test method to gas cooking tops, offering an optional
method for burden reduction, normalizing the energy use of each test
cycle, adding measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use,
altering certain test conditions such as starting water temperature,
and adding specificity to certain provisions. Id.
The November 2021 NOPR also presented the results of an initial
round robin test program initiated in January 2020 (2020 Round Robin).
The purpose of the 2020 Round Robin was to investigate further the IEC
water heating approach and the concerns AHAM raised in its petition
that led to the withdrawal of the prior test procedure. Id. at 60979-
80. The comment period for the November 2021 NOPR was initially set to
close on January 3, 2022. DOE, however, published a notice of
[[Page 24136]]
data availability on December 16, 2021 (December 2021 NODA), in which
DOE announced that it had published the results of a second round robin
test program initiated in May 2021 (2021 Round Robin) and extended the
comment period for the November 2021 NOPR until January 18, 2022. See
86 FR 71406.
AHAM submitted comments in response to the November 2021 NOPR and
December 2021 NODA stating DOE had not yet provided sufficient support
for its proposed test procedure to demonstrate that it meets the
statutory requirements for a mandatory test procedure. AHAM argued that
the burden, repeatability, and reproducibility issues were still so
significant that the proposed test procedure threatened the integrity
of the Appliance Standards Program. And AHAM's research continued to
show that the test procedure DOE proposed, though DOE attempted to
improve it, may not be representative for some cooktops (especially
gas). Moreover, AHAM pointed out that DOE's process to develop the
proposed test procedure was fraught with the same problems that plagued
the last version of the test, which DOE ended up withdrawing. AHAM also
highlighted its continued concerns with lack of transparency in the
process used to develop this test procedure, and argued that DOE's
proposed rule was not adequately supported by data (despite the fact
that AHAM--with DOE's knowledge--was actively working on obtaining data
that would be highly relevant to the development of a cooktop test
procedure).
On March 16, 2022, per a request from AHAM, DOE published full test
data that was previously presented only in summary form in the December
2021 NODA. DOE indicated that it published this data in response to
AHAM's request to provide its full, raw data on the record for
stakeholder review, and indicated it did so only after receiving
permission from applicable stakeholders to publish their data in the
docket. On August 22, 2022, DOE adopted its proposed rule as a new
final test procedure, 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1.
In parallel to this rulemaking activity, AHAM's cooktop test
procedure task force was working to address the issues AHAM previously
identified with the test procedure. In fact, AHAM's task force
continues to work. DOE, its consultant (Guidehouse), and efficiency
advocates were, and continue to be, participants in this effort. From
August 2021 to November 2022 AHAM completed two sets of testing at (1)
third-party test laboratories; and (2) manufacturer test laboratories.
The test results support AHAM's arguments that DOE's test procedure is
not sufficiently reproducible and is overly burdensome to conduct.
Based on our extensive testing, AHAM continues to believe that--
though some portions of the final test procedure are an improvement on
the proposed test procedure--the test continues to be unduly
burdensome. Our concerns about reproducibility have also not been fully
addressed and, thus, we continue to have concerns about the test's
accuracy as well. We recognize, however, that the Department is under
significant political pressure and is unlikely to take the time needed
to fully investigate and resolve those issues. As a result, AHAM is
submitting this Petition targeting key areas in which we believe the
test procedure can be improved to significantly decrease test burden
without negatively impacting the test's accuracy or representativeness.
These changes are not time-consuming to introduce and, especially
because there is not yet an applicable standard, we request that the
Department expeditiously consider and grant this Petition. It is
critical that changes be made before mandatory use of the test
procedure is required and before a second draft (and final version of)
an ENERGY STAR specification. Thus, while DOE is reviewing these
changes, we ask that DOE stay the effectiveness of any mandatory use of
the test procedure with regard to representations and/or standards/
ENERGY STAR compliance.
II. The Cooktop Test Procedure Is Unduly Burdensome To Conduct
DOE's final rule estimated a third-party test laboratory cost of
$4,100 to conduct the test procedure for a single cooking top, and an
estimated 23.6 hours of technician time if the test were conducted in-
house. AHAM data, however, demonstrates that this is a significant
underestimate.
DOE must acknowledge that cooking tops are an attended product
(i.e., for safety reasons and due to the nature of the test, they
cannot be left unattended by the test technician) and, thus, are
inherently more burdensome to test than many other presently regulated
appliances. Even were the test time to be equivalent in the number of
hours to other test procedures, qualitatively, the test is more
burdensome because those hours require active technician time.
According to aggregated manufacturer estimates, 70 to 75 percent of the
current test requires technician interaction. This cannot be automated
or monitored electronically as can be done for unattended appliances,
like a refrigerator for example.
To get a detailed look at the test burden, AHAM collected member
data on active hours (i.e., those that require the test technician to
actively conduct the test and/or attend the appliance during the test)
and total hours to conduct the test (i.e., the active hours plus the
test hours during which the appliance need not be attended). Table 1
below identifies the activities included in ``active'' hours versus
non-active hours.
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in active hours Excluded in active hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring temperatures................ Cool down period of unit.
Adjusting controls..................... Waiting for starting water
temperature or ambient
temperature to fall within
specifications.
Selecting and placing cookware......... Instances where getting to the
turndown temperature takes a
long time and the technician
steps away or multi-tasks.
Determination of turndown temperature/
simmer setting.
Unit setup and teardown................
Review of water temperature data to
determine the type of test: Energy
Test Cycle (ETC), Minimum Above
Threshold (MAT), or Maximum Below
Threshold (MBT).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24137]]
AHAM data shows the average active hours for testing a 4-zone
electric cooking top to be 37.4 hours, and the average active hours for
testing a 5-zone gas cooking top to be 43.6 hours. Members estimated a
total test time of 49.9 hours for a 4-zone electric cooking top and
57.8 hours for a 5-zone gas cooking top. This far exceeds DOE estimates
with active hours alone being 58 percent and 85 percent more time,
respectively. While the manufacturer estimates may include a small
learning curve, AHAM data should not be discounted for this reason.
Learning and training on this more involved test is part of the burden
and will happen every time a new technician executes this test method.
And the consideration of active test hours is an important one because
it means that the technician is not as available to do other things
during the test as s/he would be for an unattended appliance and a test
that requires less technician interaction and monitoring.
In regards to (third-party) testing costs per single cooking top,
AHAM data shows a cost 1.9 to 2.6 times more than DOE's estimate
(approximately $7,900 to $10,800).
III. To Reduce Test Burden, DOE Should Permit a Simmer Calculation
Option in the Test Procedure
Because of the challenges associated with conducting the simmer
portion of Appendix I1 such as finding the correct simmer settings for
each cooking zone, the simmer portion of the test adds unnecessary
procedural steps resulting in significant test burden without adding
meaningfully to differentiating the energy efficiency of individual
units.
To determine if a less burdensome approach is possible, AHAM
conducted investigative testing on 18 cooking tops from ten different
manufacturers using third party testing laboratories and testing per
Appendix I1 as written. In addition, AHAM collected internal test data
from three different manufacturers who conducted their own in-house
testing, also using Appendix I1 as written. Using this data, AHAM
developed a simmer calculation for each type of cooking top (electric
coil, electric radiant, induction and gas) that is accurate and
reliable and with this Petition we are asking DOE tom include it as an
alternative in Appendix I1.
The calculation would require that each cooking zone be tested at
the maximum setting until water reaches 90 [deg]C. The energy
consumption to reach 90 [deg]C is then entered into the relevant simmer
calculation for a final result that includes the simulated energy
consumed during a physical simmer test. Major steps of a test using the
simmer calculation are summarized in the graphic below:
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP23.003
This allows the test result for each model to maintain the same
consumer representativeness of the full physical test. Given the
limited technology options available for increasing efficiency for any
of these product types, it is unlikely that these calculations will
change significantly in the coming years. And even if changes are
needed, manufacturers could seek guidance or waivers as needed.
Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooking top product type Proposed simmer equation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Coil.......................... E = 1.43E90-0.02P-4.74.
Electric Radiant....................... E = 1.31E90-9.02.
Induction.............................. E = 1.47E90-4.63.
Gas.................................... E = 1.16E90 + 488.12.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The below chart shows the r-squared value by product type for each
simmer calculation equation. As these values indicate, the alternative
calculations AHAM proposes are highly correlated to the tested values
and are, thus excellent approximations of conducting the physical test.
Thus, DOE should include
[[Page 24138]]
these equations as options in the test procedure.
Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simmer calculation equation
Cooking top product type R-squared value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Coil............................. 0.9893 (98.9%)
Electric Radiant.......................... 0.9988 (99.9%)
Induction................................. 0.9964 (99.6%)
Gas....................................... 0.9744 (97.4%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graphic representations of simmer calculations, and the data points
that are used to create the calculations, are shown below to visually
show the high degree of correlation between tested values and
calculated values. (A coil plot is not shown because it is a multi-
variable equation).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP23.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP23.005
[[Page 24139]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP23.006
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
AHAM believes each product-type's simmer calculation equation will
get stronger with the inclusion of DOE's round robin dataset (improving
the R-squared values further). To make these calculations stronger
(based on more data points), DOE should release the raw, second-by-
second, data of its own testing. AHAM has repeatedly requested that
data both as part of its task force work with DOE and on the record,\6\
but DOE has yet to provide it. Including that data will serve to
improve the alternative calculations making them even more accurate. In
the interest of improving accuracy even further, AHAM will provide our
raw data confidentially to Guidehouse instead. All data used in
developing the simmer calculations will be included. We hope this will
allow Guidehouse to update the equations we propose based on a larger
data set given that we have not been able to do so without DOE's data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See AHAM Supplemental Comments on DOE's Energy Conservation
Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products; Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Notification of Data Availability; Docket No. EERE-
2021-BT-TP-0023; RIN 1904-AF18 (July 19, 2022), available at
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the high correlation between the simmer calculation and the
simmer test, AHAM requests that DOE amend the cooking top test
procedure to allow manufacturers to use the simmer calculation as a
replacement for the simmer portion of the test procedure. This would
allow manufacturers to conduct a simmer calculation or a physical
simmer test.
AHAM strongly urges DOE to amend the test procedure to include this
alternate calculation method because it will significantly reduce test
burden for manufacturers. If DOE believes that the proposed alternative
calculation method's variation is too high, AHAM submits that the
calculation is well correlated to the test results and thus, if the
calculation variation is too significant, so too is the tested
variation. The calculation method allows equivalence in variation, but
with lower test burden. Table 4 identifies each part of the DOE test
procedure that was conducted during active mode AHAM Location 2
investigative testing.
Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of times Number of times
Unit Part of test conducted-- full DOE conducted--simmer
test calculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B....................................... Pre-selection............. 16 0
Overshoot................. 4 0
Energy test............... 8 4
C....................................... Pre-selection............. 30 0
Overshoot................. 4 0
Energy test............... 6 4
D....................................... Pre-selection............. 19 0
Overshoot................. 4 0
Energy test............... 8 4
G....................................... Pre-selection............. 21 0
Overshoot................. 5 0
Energy test............... 9 5
K....................................... Pre-selection............. 13 0
Overshoot................. 4 0
Energy test............... 8 4
M....................................... Burner rating............. 4 4
Pre-selection............. 14 0
Overshoot................. 4 0
[[Page 24140]]
Energy test............... 8 4
N....................................... Burner rating............. 5 5
Pre-selection............. 28 0
Overshoot................. 5 0
Energy test............... 10 5
O....................................... Burner rating............. 4 4
Pre-selection............. 15 0
Overshoot................. 4 0
Energy test............... 8 4
P....................................... Burner rating............. 4 4
Pre-selection............. 13 0
Overshoot................. 4 0
Energy test............... 8 4
R....................................... Burner rating............. 4 4
Pre-selection............. 12 0
Overshoot................. 8 0
Energy test............... 8 4
-------------------------------------------
Total............................... .......................... 329 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total number of test parts would be reduced by 81 percent if a
simmer calculation is used.
Importantly, the simmer calculation meets DOE's criteria as
described in the final rule. DOE stated that in order to ensure that
the test method is representative of consumer usage, any alternative
method would need to provide an estimated energy consumption specific
to the conventional cooking top model under test, rather than yielding
an approximate value by means of a generic approach that applies
equally for all models. Any such alternative method would need to
produce equivalent estimated energy consumption results and associated
product rankings as the physical test procedure established in Appendix
I1.\7\ DOE's criteria for a simmer calculation and the manner in which
AHAM's proposal meet them are as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Cooking Product Test Procedure Final Rule at 51530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Produce equivalent product rankings.
We note that, in order to evaluate equivalent product rankings
between the proposed alternative calculation method and the full
physical test, there must be consistent product rankings for the full
physical tests. The full physical test procedure does not produce
consistent product rankings. For example, the same gas units rank
differently when tested at different labs.
Table 5--Integrated Annual Energy Consumption (EIAEC) Reproducibility--Measured
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank Rank
Type Location 1 (electric, Location 2 (electric,
gas) gas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit M........................ Gas............. 1473.7 4 1443.3 3
Unit N (avg).................. Gas............. 1397.2 2 1385.4 2
Unit O........................ Gas............. 1471.4 3 1465.6 4
Unit P........................ Gas............. 1603.8 6 1531.5 5
Unit Q (avg).................. Gas............. 1345.3 1 1330.3 1
Unit R........................ Gas............. 1522.5 5 1535.8 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the full test, including simmer, produces inconsistent
product rankings, it is not reasonable to expect consistency, nor does
it make sense to require the alternative calculation to be equally
inconsistent.
2. Be based on test data from multiple labs.
The simmer equations AHAM proposes in this Petition are based on
testing a two third-party laboratories and three manufacturer
laboratories.
3. Be representative of tested simmering period on multiple types
of products.
The simmer equations AHAM proposes in this Petition are based on a
number of models using different technologies including coil, radiant,
induction, and gas heating elements.
AHAM proposes that a unique equation be established for each
surface cooking type based on the underlying physics--i.e., stored
energy within the elements, speed of heating the water resulting in
heat lost to the environment, and thermal coupling between the pot and
surface cooking type.
Table 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Models used in
Type developing
calculation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coil.................................................... 5
Radiant................................................. 6
Induction............................................... 5
Gas..................................................... 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Include data from products that cover a wide range of available
surface cooking types.
It is unclear what technology options DOE is looking to capture,
but due to the high number of manufacturers that
[[Page 24141]]
submitted units or data, we are confident that a range of designs are
considered within the calculation.
Table 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers
represented Range of rated cooking zone power for units in
Type in developing AHAM investigative testing
calculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coil....................................... 3 675-2,600 W.
Radiant.................................... 5 1,200-3,300 W.
Induction.................................. 5 1,400-3,600 W.
Gas........................................ 7 5,000-19,500 Btu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Produce equivalent energy consumption results when compared to
the results produced by the full test.
The difference between physical test results and calculated results
using the equations AHAM proposes in this Petition is small. As an
example, the below table evaluates fully tested versus calculated
results at one of the third-party testing locations in AHAM's testing.
The average difference was only about one percent, which is
insignificant, particularly when compared to the variation in the full
test. Table 8 below demonstrates this point.
Table 8--Percent Difference EIAEC--Measured vs. Predicted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Location 1 (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit B (avg)...................... Coil................ 3.3
Unit C............................ Coil................ 0.3
Unit D............................ Radiant............. 0.0
Unit G............................ Radiant............. -1.3
Unit K............................ Induction........... 1.7
Unit M............................ Gas................. 0.0
Unit N............................ Gas................. -4.7
Unit O............................ Gas................. -1.3
Unit P............................ Gas................. -3.7
Unit Q............................ Gas................. -2.5
Unit R............................ Gas................. -3.9
Average........................... .................... -1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Capture differences between simmer strategies.
Based on discussions with Guidehouse during our task force efforts,
AHAM understands ``simmer strategies'' to mean some combination of
control type, power levels, power steps, and safety features that a
model uses to set, control and maintain power levels. Twelve electric
samples were tested at third-party labs; this data was used in
developing the simmer equations. Of those samples, AHAM has confirmed
that five use an infinite switch control and four use a software-based
control. For gas units, see points three and four above showing the
large number of models and manufacturers considered. (Note that
information on controls was not provided for all units in AHAM's
sample.)
As a supplement to this petition, we are confidentially submitting
to Guidehouse raw test data that supports our arguments in this
Petition and supports DOE amending Appendix I1 to include an
alternative simmer calculation.
Additionally, AHAM requests that DOE add enforcement provisions
that require DOE to use both simmer methods (the calculation and
physical test) before making a finding of non-compliance with energy
conservation standards (and ideally, before proceeding beyond
assessment testing). A similar enforcement strategy is already in place
for refrigerators.\8\ DOE identifies compliance by using a calculation,
but can also audit by testing the unit using the test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 10 CFR 429.134(b)(2) (``The test described in section
5.2(b) of the applicable test procedure for refrigerators or
refrigerator-freezers in appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430
shall be used for all units of a basic model before DOE makes a
determination of noncompliance with respect to the basic model.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. AHAM Proposes Two Minor Clarifications
Separate from our proposal to permit a calculation alternative to
the simmer portion of the test procedure, AHAM also proposes additional
minor changes to improve the clarity of the test procedure and we ask
that DOE make these changes before the test procedure becomes mandatory
to demonstrate compliance with standards/ENERGY STAR specifications,
prior to required use of the test procedure to support energy related
representations. It would also be helpful to have these improvements
made in time to allow use of them in assessing amended standards.
A. Definition of Specialty Cooking Zones
The test procedure excludes specialty cooking zones. In the final
rule, DOE noted that ``. . . a cooking zone designed for use only with
non-circular cookware would not be expected to be used with any
regularity, such that measuring its energy use would not be
representative of the energy use of a cooking top during a
representative average consumer use cycle . . .'' \9\ The final rule
also states, ``. . . a heating element on an electric cooking top with
a diameter smaller than 100 mm (3.9 inches) would likely not be able to
heat
[[Page 24142]]
water to 90 [deg]C. As such, it would likely be excluded from testing
because it would be a specialty cooking zone (e.g., a warming plate or
zone).'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Cooktop Test Procedure Final Rule at 51522.
\10\ Id. at 51505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test procedure excludes non-cooking top portions of combined
products. Appendix I1 covers conventional cooking tops and conventional
cooking top components of combined products, where a combined product
is defined as a conventional range, a microwave/conventional cooking
top, a microwave/conventional oven, and a microwave/conventional range.
DOE does not require that the microwave and cooking top be tested
together. However, DOE does not provide the same distinction for
products which are a combination of a range hood and a conventional
cooking top. AHAM requests that DOE be consistent and exclude models
where it is not possible to take a representative measurement of the
cooking top only.
Additionally, AHAM believes that more detail is needed to achieve
DOE's goal of excluding cooking zones which are not regularly used and
do not match the scope of the test procedure--i.e., boiling water.
Table 9 shows the difference between AHAM's proposal and current
Appendix I1.
Table 9--Specialty Cooking Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix I1 AHAM proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warming Plate................ Gas cooking zones, rated 5,600 Btu/h or
less, intended to hold food warm.
Electric cooking zones, rated 350W or
less, intended to hold food warm.
Note 1: Excluding 5,600 Btu/h or less may
change the gas simmer equation proposed
in this petition. If DOE decides to
exclude these smaller cooking zones,
AHAM can assist in providing an updated
simmer calculation.
Note 2: The 350W is taken from the safety
standard UL 858.
Grill, griddle, or any Cooking zones designed for use with non-
cooking zone that is circular cookware, such as bridge
designed for use only with burners, oval burners, grills, and
non-circular cookware, such griddles as designated in manufacturer
as a bridge zone. instructions.
Cooking zones designed for use with non-
flat-bottom cookware such as wok burners
as designated in manufacturer
instructions.
Portable appliances for cooking, grilling
and similar functions.
Cooking tops or ranges with a downdraft
fan that cannot be de-energized by the
appliance control according to
manufacturer instructions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Measurement of Diameter of Open Coil Heating Elements
For electric units, DOE requires measurement of the cooking zone
diameter to determine cookware size and water load. Furthermore, ``. .
. DOE clarifies that open coil heating elements are to be treated as
circular, and that the largest diameter is used . . .''
DOE does not adequately consider the method of measurement for open
coil heating elements. These types of elements have rounded edges. If
measured with a ruler, the rounded edges are unaccounted for, a smaller
diameter is measured, and smaller cookware/water load may be required.
But if a caliper were used, that would account for rounded edges,
measuring a larger diameter, and thus larger cookware/water load may be
needed. Currently, the test procedure appears to permit either
measurement tool. AHAM proposes that DOE specify which measurement tool
should be used either in the test procedure itself or through test
procedure guidance.
This is a small change for DOE to make in the procedure, but it is
an important and significant one in terms of accuracy. A small
difference in cooking zone diameter can make a large difference in the
final energy consumption as demonstrated by test results from UUT_B in
AHAM's investigative testing. This unit has two cooking zones where the
measurement method changes the water load.
Table 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement method Ruler Caliper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measured Diameter (mm).................. 188 190
Required Cookware Diameter (mm)......... 180 210
Required Water Load (g)................. 1,500 2,050
Energy, ECTE (Wh)....................... 466.01 440.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in the table above, a one percent difference in diameter
measurement produces a 5.85 percent difference in measured energy
consumption due to the change in required test water load.
DOE also had this issue for the coil units in its second round
robin.\11\ Lab A measured elements 2 and 4 at 188mm resulting in a
180mm pot. Labs C and E measured them to be 190-191 resulting in a
210mm pot. This resulted in a shift in annual energy from 179.2 to
191.3, or 6.75 percent. Burner energy was 20-30 percent different due
to a one to two percent change in diameter measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remedy this, AHAM requests that DOE clarify 3.1.1.1.1 of the
test procedure to require use of calipers, which provide a more
accurate measurement than a ruler. We propose the following text:
``Open-coil cooking zones shall be measured with calipers at the
largest outside diameter.'' Alternatively, DOE could issue guidance to
clarify that calipers should be used.
V. The DOE Test Procedure Continues To Be Highly Variable
In AHAM's view, data from DOE's second round robin still shows
unacceptable levels of variation.\12\ Taking a closer at DOE's gas
cooking top
[[Page 24143]]
units test results, Lab A consistently measures lower than Labs B and
C. On average, Lab A measures 7.9 percent lower than Labs B and C. This
is shown in Table 11 and the shift in mean values between labs is shown
in Table 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Summary of Second Round Robin Testing, testing according to
the updated procedure proposed in the November 4, 2021 NOPR, at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004.
Table 11--Average Annual Energy Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified Lab A Certified Lab B Certified Lab C Overall average
Unit # Type (kBtu) (kBtu) (kBtu) Lab E (kBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6........................... Gas........................ 982 1,096 1,106 n/a 1,061
7........................... Gas........................ 1,313 1,428 1,339 n/a 1,360
8........................... Gas........................ 1,438 1,554 1,556 n/a 1,516
9........................... Gas........................ 1,494 1,593 1,614 n/a 1,567
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12--Shift in Mean Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lab A vs. Lab B Lab A vs. Lab C Lab B vs. Lab C
Unit # Type (%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6................................ Gas................. 11.9 12.5 0.6
7................................ Gas................. 7.5 1.9 5.5
8................................ Gas................. 6.4 7.0 0.5
9................................ Gas................. 7.0 8.7 1.6
Average.......................... .................... 8.2 7.5 2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variation of this nature will have serious consequences when it
comes to future DOE compliance and enforcement efforts. Because of the
differences in potential test results depending on the laboratory
conducting the test, manufacturers will need to build in a buffer or
``safety factor'' of over ten percent on average (unit 6, Lab C vs. Lab
A shows a 12.5 percent variation) to help ensure compliance with
applicable standards.
Table 13--Percentage of (Tested) Unit Meeting Compliance During Audit
Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical allowable
shift used by Average shift in
Margin to limit third party labs DOE testing (8%)
(3%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent......................... 97.5 11.5
5 Percent......................... 100 52
8 Percent......................... 100 97.5
10 Percent........................ 100 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The variation could also mean that, for example, if a manufacturer
uses Lab B or C for certification and DOE uses Lab A for compliance and
enforcement testing, DOE's results could be an overstated efficiency as
the test unit(s) will have drifted away from their certified values due
to variation in mass production. This could result in false findings of
non-compliance. The analysis below uses DOE's round robin testing
results and statistical simulation (as presently required under 10 CFR
429 Subpart C) to show that this variation is so significant, units
with as much as five percent higher energy consumption could still meet
a future minimum energy conservation standard level and remain
compliant when tested by DOE.
Table 14--Percentage of (Tested) Unit Meeting Compliance During Audit
Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typical allowable
shift used by Average shift in
Energy value above DOE threshold third party labs DOE testing (8%)
(3%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent......................... 95 100
5 Percent......................... 76 100
8 Percent......................... 18 99
10 Percent........................ 1 86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to believe that this variation threatens the
credibility of the Appliance Standards Program and means that the
cooktop test procedure DOE finalized does not produce sufficiently
accurate results. Thus, we continue to question whether the test
procedure truly meets EPCA's criteria.
Although AHAM does not have a proposal at this time for improving
further the test's variation, we do believe DOE can reduce the test's
burden so it is not overly burdensome to conduct. Specifically, AHAM
asks that DOE simplify the test by removing the requirement to perform
a physical simmer test and providing, as an option,
[[Page 24144]]
a calculation alternative to the simmer portion of the test.
VI. Conclusion
Based on the above reasoning and justification, combined with the
data AHAM will submit with this petition, AHAM respectfully requests
that DOE amend the test procedure to:
1. Allow for a calculation as an alternative to the simmer portion
of the test; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Additionally, we ask that DOE update its enforcement
regulations to require DOE to use both the physical simmer test and
the alternative calculation method in assessment and enforcement
testing before making a determination of non-compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Exclude models where the cooktop cannot be measured in a
representative manner; and
3. Require measurement of open-coil cooking zone diameter using a
caliper.
Although we understand that DOE is working to consider energy
conservation standards for cooktops, we do not expect that making these
relatively minor changes to the test procedure will impact DOE's
ability to proceed with its other rulemaking plans. Mandatory use of
appendix I1 for representations of energy use or energy efficiency of a
conventional cooking top is not required until on or after February 20,
2023. We also note that, to date, there are no applicable energy
conservation standards for cooktops, which means that this test
procedure is not used to demonstrate compliance with applicable
standards. Nevertheless, we ask DOE to move quickly to make these
changes because the date for using the test procedure for
representations is quickly approaching and EPA is moving quickly to
develop an ENERGY STAR specification that uses DOE's test procedure.
Moreover, these changes will be helpful in assessing DOE's proposed
amended energy conservation standards.
AHAM appreciates the opportunity to submit this Petition to Amend
the Cooktop Test Procedure and would be glad to discuss these matters
in more detail should you so request. We respectfully request that DOE
urgently review and act upon this petition as it is critical that
changes be made before mandatory use of the test procedure is required.
Thus, while DOE is reviewing these changes, we ask that DOE stay the
effectiveness of that requirement.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Cleary,
/s
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs.
About AHAM: AHAM represents more than 150 member companies that
manufacture 90% of the major, portable and floor care appliances
shipped for sale in the U.S. Home appliances are the heart of the home,
and AHAM members provide safe, innovative, sustainable and efficient
products that enhance consumers' lives. The home appliance industry is
a significant segment of the economy, measured by the contributions of
home appliance manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers to the U.S.
economy. In all, the industry drives nearly $200 billion in economic
output throughout the U.S. and manufactures products with a factory
shipment value of more than $50 billion.
[FR Doc. 2023-07673 Filed 4-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
