83_FR_18024 83 FR 17944 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products, Notification of Petition for Rulemaking

83 FR 17944 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products, Notification of Petition for Rulemaking

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 80 (April 25, 2018)

Page Range17944-17961
FR Document2018-08641

On March 26, 2018, the Department of Energy (DOE) received a petition from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to withdraw, and immediately stay the effectiveness of, the conventional cooking top 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 proceed with the petition.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17944-17961]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08641]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 17944]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Cooking 
Products, 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 March 26, 2018, the Department of Energy (DOE) received a 
petition from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to 
withdraw, and immediately stay the effectiveness of, the conventional 
cooking top 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 proceed with the petition.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before June 
25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, 
identified by ``Test Procedure Cooking Products Petition,'' by any of 
the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    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, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-6636. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or 
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 
DC 20585. E-mail: [email protected]; (202) 287-6122.

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 reconsider its final rule on 
Test Procedures for Cooking Products, Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013, 
RIN 1904-AC71, 81 FR 91418 (Dec. 16, 2016) (Final Rule). In 
promulgating 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\ Attachments and data submitted by AHAM with its petition for 
rulemaking are available in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, AHAM requests that DOE undertake rulemaking to 
withdraw the cooking top test procedure, while maintaining the repeal 
of the oven test procedure that was part of the Final Rule. And, in the 
interim, AHAM seeks an immediate stay of the effectiveness of the Final 
Rule, including the requirement that manufacturers use the final test 
procedure to make energy related claims. Should DOE continue to pursue 
a revised cooking top test procedure, AHAM asserts that DOE should 
address repeatability and reproducibility and demonstrate, through 
round robin testing, that the test is repeatable and reproducible and, 
for gas cooking tops, accurate. AHAM claims that its analyses show that 
the test procedure is not representative for gas cooking tops and, for 
gas and electric cooking tops, has such a high level of variation it 
will not produce accurate results for certification or enforcement 
purposes and will not assist consumers in making purchasing decisions 
based on energy efficiency.
    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of the petition for 
reconsideration, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments 
and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
    (1) The repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure for 
conventional electric and gas cooking tops. DOE previously presented 
results from round robin testing completed by the Department and by IEC 
in the docket of the test procedure rulemaking. DOE seeks comments on 
that data as well as the new data AHAM has supplied supporting its 
petition;
    (2) The accuracy of determining the simmer setting and turndown 
temperature;
    (3) The impact of heating element cycling during the initial heat-
up phase of testing on the overall measured energy consumption of 
electric cooking tops, and the prevalence of such cycling in units 
available on the market.
    (4) The extent of any warpage which may have been observed at the 
bottom surface of test vessels during cooking top testing;
    (5) The impact of varying gas burner and grate systems on the 
representativeness of the water-heating test method for gas cooking 
tops;
    (6) The type of control system, heating element, and other product 
redesigns necessitated by changes in safety standards for electric 
cooking tops, and the impact of these new product designs on the 
repeatability, reproducibility, and representativeness of the electric 
cooking product test procedure;
    (7) Characteristics of a representative test sample for electric 
and gas cooking tops for use in any additional round robin testing to 
evaluate the applicability of the test procedure to the conventional 
cooking top market as a whole;
    (8) Information on how consumers cook differently on gas cooktops 
versus electric cooktops;
    (9) Information on how consumers use the simmer setting on a gas 
cooktop; and,

[[Page 17945]]

    (10) The test burden associated with the test procedure for 
conventional electric and gas cooking tops, including the ability of 
testing laboratories to meet the required ambient test conditions.

Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by June 25, 
2018 comments and information regarding this petition.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information prior to submitting comments. Your contact 
information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. 
Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your 
first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter 
representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly 
because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to 
contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to http://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 
http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents via hand delivery or mail will also be posted to http://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 in your cover letter each time you 
submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you 
submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted 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 include any special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the 
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lost its 
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    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].

Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this 
notification of petition for rulemaking.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 18, 2018.
Daniel Simmons,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.

Before the

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

    In the Matter of: Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures 
for Cooking Products

Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0013

RIN 1904-AC71

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) respectfully

[[Page 17946]]

petitions the Department of Energy (DOE) for reconsideration of its 
final rule on Test Procedures for Cooking Products, Docket No. EERE-
2012-BT-TP-0013 RIN 1904-AC71, 81 Fed. Reg. 91418 (Dec. 16, 2016) 
(Final Rule).
    AHAM believes that, overall, the adoption of a water-boil test 
procedure for cooking products is the appropriate procedure. And we 
thank DOE for making changes to its earlier proposed test procedure 
which would have used a hybrid block after AHAM demonstrated the 
practical difficulties associated with that test. But DOE adopted a 
final cooktop test procedure too hastily, especially in light of 
comments AHAM submitted that demonstrated the test's lack of 
repeatability and reproducibility and questioned the use of a test 
procedure meant for electric cooktops for gas cooktops. AHAM has 
evaluated the Final Rule and conducted additional testing on gas 
cooktops. Our analyses show that the test procedure is not 
representative for gas cooktops and, for gas and electric cooktops, has 
such a high level of variation it will not produce accurate results for 
certification or enforcement purposes and will not assist consumers in 
making purchasing decisions based on energy efficiency.
    AHAM thus requests that DOE withdraw the cooktop test procedure. 
And, in the interim, we seek an immediate stay of the effectiveness, 
including the requirement that manufacturers use the final test 
procedure to make energy related claims, of the cooktop test procedure. 
Should DOE continue to pursue an improved cooktop test procedure, DOE 
should address repeatability and reproducibility and demonstrate, 
through round robin testing, that the test is repeatable and 
reproducible and, for gas cooktops, representative.

FACTS

    DOE began revisions to the cooktop test procedure with a notice of 
proposed rulemaking on January 30, 2013 (January 2013 NOPR) in which 
DOE proposed amendments to Appendix I to subpart B of 10 C.F.R. part 
430 (Appendix I) that would allow for the measuring of active mode 
energy consumption of induction cooking products. Specifically, DOE 
proposed to require the use of test equipment--hybrid test blocks 
comprised of an aluminum body and a stainless steel base--compatible 
with induction technology.
    AHAM objected to DOE's proposed amendments to the test procedure 
because the amendments did not enhance the accuracy and/or 
representativeness of the test procedure. See AHAM Comments on DOE's 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Test Procedures for Conventional 
Cooking Products With Induction Heating Technology (April 15, 2013). 
AHAM commented that any test procedure DOE adopts to measure induction 
heating technology must be both repeatable and reproducible. Id. AHAM 
cautioned that significant further study was necessary before DOE could 
adopt a test procedure that accurately measures induction cooktop 
energy efficiency. Id. More specifically, AHAM opposed the proposed 
test procedure because the proposal had a number of technical problems 
and ambiguities (e.g., ambiguous construction of hybrid test block); 
DOE's data did not clearly identify one method (test block versus water 
heating) as being preferable to the other for induction units; and the 
proposed procedure would treat induction technology differently than 
other technologies, thereby penalizing it. Id. AHAM also questioned 
whether the test block method in general was representative of actual 
consumer use. Id.
    In response to stakeholder comments, DOE published a supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking modifying its proposal. 79 Fed. Reg. 
71894 (Dec. 3, 2014) (December 2014 SNOPR). DOE's modified proposal 
maintained a hybrid test block approach despite AHAM's comments. DOE 
proposed to add a layer of thermal grease between the stainless steel 
base and aluminum body of the hybrid test block to facilitate heat 
transfer between the two pieces, and DOE proposed additional test 
equipment for electric surface units with large diameters and gas 
cooking top burners with high input rates.
    AHAM's comments on the December 2014 SNOPR raised serious concerns 
about the hybrid test blocks and the thermal grease. See AHAM Comments 
on DOE's Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Test Procedures 
for Conventional Cooking Products (Feb. 2, 2015). AHAM also raised 
questions about the testing of flexible cooking zone areas, testing 
units with flexible concentric burner sizes, and the use of the 
smallest dimension of a noncircular electric surface unit to determine 
block size. Id.
    Based on comments it received in response to the December 2014 
SNOPR and a series of manufacturer interviews DOE conducted in February 
and March 2015, DOE subsequently withdrew its proposal for testing 
conventional cooktops with a hybrid test block in yet another 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. 81 Fed. Reg. 57374 (Aug. 
22, 2016) (August 2016 SNOPR). In the August 2016 SNOPR, DOE instead 
proposed to modify its procedure to incorporate by reference the 
relevant sections of EN 60350-2:2013 ``Household electric cooking 
appliances Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance,'' which 
uses a water-heating test method to measure energy consumption of 
electric cooktops. Despite the fact that the EN test procedure DOE 
cited applies only to electric cooktops, DOE also proposed to extend 
that method to gas cooktops.
    AHAM generally agreed and continues to agree with DOE that the best 
test method for cooktops is a water boil test and supported DOE's 
abandoning of the hybrid test block method. See AHAM Comments on DOE's 
SNOPR on Test Procedures for Cooking Products (Sept. 21, 2016). 
Nevertheless, AHAM commented extensively on potential sources of 
variation with DOE's proposed procedure that needed to be resolved 
before DOE finalized a cooktop test procedure. Id.
    Prior to DOE proposing a water-heating test, AHAM conducted a round 
robin based on the Second Edition of IEC 60350-2 (2015), Household 
Electric Cooking Appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for Measuring 
Performance. Id. The AHAM round robin consisted of four units 
encompassing a different combination of controls and heating elements. 
Id. AHAM assessed radiant, coil, and induction heating elements as well 
as infinite and step controls. Participating labs performed at least 
three full tests on the three electric technologies. The results 
demonstrated that the procedure was not reproducible from lab to lab. 
AHAM data demonstrated significant variation in the proposed test 
procedure--coefficients of variation of 9.2 percent for electric 
radiant cooktops, 7.1 percent for electric coil cooktops, and 8.4 
percent for induction cooktops. Id.
    Based on that testing, AHAM commented that a significant amount of 
work remained to be done to finalize a test and to demonstrate that the 
final test is repeatable and reproducible. Id. Specifically, AHAM 
listed a number of items that needed to be resolved, including several 
potential sources of test procedure variation, before DOE could 
finalize the test procedure, and requested that DOE issue a notice of 
data availability or supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to 
provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment:
     Lack of a tolerance on staying ``as close as possible'' to 
90[deg] C;

[[Page 17947]]

     Variability in energy consumption during the simmering 
phase;
     Variability in determining the turn down temperature;
     Variability in determining the turn down setting;
     Unit cycling;
     Specifying a temperature sensor for measuring the water 
temperature;
     A proposal to use a moving average for calculating the 
final result;
     Limited suppliers of test pots;
     No tool or tolerance specified for cooktop diameter 
measurement;
     Test pots do not accommodate all grate designs;
     Difficulty with placement of pots on gas cooktops;
     Impact of gas burner system, geometry, spacing, and grates 
on repeatability and reproducibility;
     Impact of using the electric test pots on gas cooktops; 
and
     Overshoot temperature of the water can reach beyond 
90[deg] C for some gas cooktops. Id.

AHAM also requested that DOE indicate how the changes to the test 
procedure would impact the proposed standards and allow stakeholders 
additional time to comment on those proposed standards based on the 
test procedure changes. Id.
    In response to AHAM's comments, DOE sent AHAM a request for data on 
September 27, 2016. That data request was voluminous and overlapped 
with the comment period on the proposed standards for cooking 
products--which ended on November 2, 2016--and DOE proposed in parallel 
with the August 2016 SNOPR. See Energy Conservation Program: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products, 
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 81 Fed Reg. 60784 (Sept. 2, 
2016). Nevertheless, AHAM worked to answer DOE's questions and, on 
November 23, 2016, filed a detailed response, including a significant 
amount of raw data DOE requested which AHAM submitted to Navigant 
Consulting under a confidentiality agreement. See AHAM Comments on 
DOE's SNOPR on Test Procedures for Cooking Products (dated Nov. 22, 
2016).\1\ AHAM informed DOE in advance that it would be submitting the 
response. Despite having asked for that data and having been informed 
AHAM would be providing it, DOE issued a final test procedure on that 
same day, November 23, 2016, which it published on December 16, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We hereby incorporate into this petition by reference all 
data AHAM submitted to DOE and Navigant as part of the test 
procedure rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Final Rule adopted DOE's proposed test procedure with some 
changes DOE believed would improve repeatability and reproducibility. 
In support of the final test procedure, DOE conducted additional 
testing. DOE conducted testing of five electric cooktops incorporating 
different heating technologies and control types. For each unit, DOE 
conducted testing on surface units capturing a range of heating element 
sizes. DOE conducted two to three tests per surface unit. For each 
individual test, DOE performed the full surface unit test method, 
including the preliminary test required to determine the turndown 
temperature and simmering setting for a given surface unit. DOE varied 
test operators for surface unit tests, but did not conduct testing in 
different laboratories. In addition, DOE included test results from 
previous tests of these units conducted in support of the August 2016 
SNOPR. DOE relied on that minimal data to determine that the final test 
procedure, finalized only two months after DOE received voluminous 
comments from AHAM concerning a lack of repeatability and 
reproducibility as demonstrated through 27 tests on three units at 
three different laboratories.

ARGUMENT

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (EPCA) 
requires that test procedures be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated 
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative 
average use cycle and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 42 
U.S.C. Sec.  6293(b)(3). This requirement is meaningless if the test 
procedure is not repeatable and reproducible--only a repeatable and 
reproducible test procedure can produce accurate results that DOE can 
rely on for certification and verification purposes and that consumers 
can rely on to compare energy use or efficiency across products.
    AHAM appreciates that DOE made changes from the August 2016 SNOPR 
to the Final Rule in an attempt to address AHAM's September 21, 2016 
comments. AHAM also appreciates that DOE conducted additional testing 
to further assess the proposed and final test procedure. But DOE did 
not take the time or do the work necessary to finalize a test procedure 
that fully or satisfactorily addresses the significant issues AHAM 
raised in its comments or the data AHAM provided in response to DOE's 
request. This is further demonstrated based on additional testing and 
analysis AHAM conducted after the Final Rule was published.
    DOE did not support the Final Rule with sufficient data to 
demonstrate that it is accurate, repeatable, and reproducible. More 
specifically, as discussed more fully below:
    [squ] DOE has not demonstrated that the test procedure is 
representative for gas products. DOE did not demonstrate that its 
deviation from the international approach--testing gas cooktops using a 
different procedure than is used for testing electric cooktops--was 
warranted or would produce accurate, representative results. And DOE 
tested only a small sample that cannot be representative of the many 
different types of gas models on the market and the result is that the 
test may not adequately address the different systems available to 
consumers. Thus, DOE has not demonstrated that the test procedure is 
representative or accurate for gas products.
    [squ] DOE's testing of electric and gas cooktops was insufficient 
to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility and, thus, DOE's 
conclusions are based on results with a low confidence level which is 
highlighted by AHAM's conflicting results. Accordingly, DOE did not 
produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its test procedure is 
supported by data.
    [squ] Although DOE tried to address variation by requiring 
recording of the simmering setting selection, AHAM's testing 
demonstrates that that requirement does not in fact reduce variation.
    [squ] Although DOE attempted to clarify when the simmering period 
starts, DOE's clarification does not adequately reduce variation.
    [squ] DOE improperly dismissed unit cycling's contribution to 
variation.
    [squ] DOE did not account for the fact that electric coil cooktops 
are currently undergoing significant redesign to comply with voluntary 
safety standards. It is possible that the new products will not respond 
the same way to the test.
    [squ] DOE did not investigate the impact of pan warpage on test 
results. Initial data from a study done for AHAM shows pan warpage will 
contribute to variation.
    [squ] Based on data from a round robin AHAM conducted with gas 
cooktops, the test procedure is not repeatable or reproducible for gas 
cooktops. Within unit and between unit variation also contributes to 
the total variation and DOE has not accounted for it.
    In addition, the test procedure is unduly burdensome to conduct. 
Based on AHAM's experience to date, it takes on average 20 hours to 
conduct a single test on a four burner cooktop and requires the testing 
of every single

[[Page 17948]]

burner or element individually. And, because the test requires the 
technician to determine the turn-down temperature before every test and 
the ambient conditions are quite tight, several runs are often required 
before a valid run can be achieved. Our testing, which is described 
more fully below, found that some tests took upward of five days for a 
single cooktop. Moreover, the test cost is much higher than DOE 
concluded in its Final Rule on both an up-front and ongoing basis.
    Because the final test procedure may not be representative for gas 
products and is not repeatable or reproducible for either gas or 
electric cooktops, it does not accurately measure cooktop energy 
efficiency and will not allow consumers to compare products on that 
basis. Thus, because the test is also unduly burdensome to conduct, the 
cooktop test procedure as a whole does not meet EPCA's statutory 
requirement that test procedures be reasonably designed to produce 
representative results and are not unduly burdensome to conduct. 
Moreover, because DOE did not support the conclusions in the Final Rule 
with sufficient data, DOE's Final Rule could be determined to be 
arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, AHAM respectfully requests that 
DOE withdraw the Final Rule amending the cooktop test procedure. And, 
in the interim, we seek an immediate stay of the effectiveness, 
including the requirement that manufacturers use the final test 
procedure to make energy related claims, of the Final Rule. To be 
clear, AHAM is not seeking reconsideration regarding DOE's decision to 
repeal the oven test procedure.

I. DOE Has Not Demonstrated That The Test Procedure Is Representative 
for Gas Cooktops.

    In the August 2016 SNOPR, DOE proposed to extend the electric test 
procedure in EN 60350-2:2013 ``Household electric cooking appliances 
Part 2: Hobs--Methods for measuring performance'' to gas cooktops. AHAM 
commented in its September 21, 2016 comments that there is no consumer 
data on the consumer representativeness of that method for gas 
cooktops. AHAM noted that DOE's proposal, and now Final Rule, is not 
harmonized with the European approach, which uses a different test 
procedure and different test pots to test gas cooktops. DOE's 
methodology is also different than ASTM F152, ``Standard Test Methods 
for Performance of Range Tops,'' which DOE reviewed during the test 
procedure rulemaking and is used by the commercial range industry. DOE 
dismissed ASTM F1521 because of the BTU range for commercial range 
tops, and AHAM is not arguing that it is the appropriate procedure for 
residential products. But the science behind the test setup in ASTM is 
similar to the EN gas test procedure which demonstrates that the basic 
methodology for testing gas products is well established.
    Accordingly, no manufacturer or third party test laboratory--in the 
U.S., Europe, or elsewhere in the world--had experience with DOE's 
proposed test procedure for gas cooktops other than DOE's minimal 
testing in one laboratory prior to the publishing of the Final Rule. 
Thus, neither DOE nor manufacturers have knowledge of whether this test 
will be representative for gas products. Accordingly, DOE does not have 
the necessary data to justify the use of this method on gas cooktops in 
the United States, especially in light of the fact that Europe uses a 
different approach.
    In fact, AHAM believes that the evidence supports the opposite 
conclusion--i.e., that the cooktop test procedure is not representative 
for gas cooktops. The EN and ASTM standards use a different test 
procedure for gas cooktops and do so for good reason. Unlike electric 
cooktops, gas cooktops utilize a system approach--every component and 
design choice is connected to other components and design choices and 
they work together. The cooking heat out to the pot depends on the 
design of the burner, flow of gas, mass of the grate, and height of the 
grate from the burner.
    Gas testing is a science, and DOE did not do sufficient study to 
determine whether the electric test procedure it adopted would measure 
representative results for gas cooktops:
    1. First, the purpose behind EN 60350-2:2013 was to establish a 
test to determine minimum energy for electric cooktops. The reason that 
the working group that developed the test decided to assess simmer for 
electric cooktops was to show the distinction in energy use between the 
different electric technologies, i.e. induction, radiant. For electric 
cooktops, technology has an impact on how much energy is used to get to 
boil and also how much energy it uses to keep a simmer temperature. 
Thus, some technologies may appear to be more or less efficient if just 
a time to boil was assessed. For electric, the simmer portion of the 
test is needed to accurately show the cooktop's energy use and to allow 
comparison across the product types. Figure 1 below shows how the test 
distinguishes between electric technologies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CECED, 2012.

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

[[Page 17949]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP18.006

    2. In an attempt to keep one test method, DOE extended this 
electric method to gas cooktops. AHAM appreciates the attempt to reduce 
the number of test methods. But, in this case, there is no reason to 
use one type of test. There are not different types of gas technologies 
and so a simmer period is not needed to differentiate between 
technologies as it is in electric. The significant added burden of 
including the simmer setting (and the variation it introduces) is not 
likely balanced by a benefit in terms of energy savings.
    In addition, most consumers likely replace their cooktops with the 
same fuel that is already in their home. Based on a 2010 study 
conducted for AHAM, the vast majority of consumers surveyed replaced 
their cooktops and ranges with a similar unit. According to the study, 
nearly nine in ten households that bought a freestanding single oven 
range did a direct replacement. Homeowners were even more likely to do 
a direct replacement of this type of appliance, at 94 percent.\3\ So, 
it is unlikely that consumers are comparing gas and electric products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Bellomy Research for AHAM, 2010 Major Appliance Consumer 
Research Survey, Cooking Appliances (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The best comparison for comparing gas cooktops to other gas 
cooktops would be based on a simple bring to boil test, which is what 
Europe and the ASTM methods both use. DOE is the first to reinvent the 
wheel and require gas and electric cooktops to be tested in the same 
way.
    4. On a gas unit, there is very little overshoot which means there 
is no retained heat. Electric cooktops, on the other hand, often have a 
significant amount of retained heat. A gas cooktop's ability to 
maintain simmer in the absence of retained heat is largely a function 
of grate to burner relationships, burner design, valve design, and pan 
position. This relationship is not accounted for in the electric 
cooktop test because it does not need to be. But it does need to be 
addressed in a test applicable to gas cooktops.
    5. More so than electric elements, gas burners are designed for a 
specific cooking purpose. For example:
    a. Small or semi-rapid burners are typically used for simmering. 
This simmering performance is developed for melting chocolate and fine 
sauces, not keeping water simmering.
    b. Ultra rapid or rapid burners are designed to reduce time to 
boil, or for frying. Often flame stability suffers at low rates, making 
simmering results poor.
    c. Other high input burners are designed for rapid cooking (i.e. 
Wok) and are not designed for simmering.
    Each of these burner types have been optimized in design to serve a 
particular cooking function for consumers. Thus, it may not make sense 
to apply a water boil test to all of them. For example, a consumer 
would not likely boil water on the small/semi-rapid burner that is 
meant to be used for melting chocolate or cooking fine sauces--the time 
to boil on such a burner would be extremely long, perhaps 40 minutes. 
In addition to not being representative, the test will drive 
significant variation in the assessment because DOE did not address 
this in the test procedure. DOE did, however, address this issue for 
electric cooktops--the test procedure removes certain burners from 
assessment.
    6. Additionally, because DOE extended a test meant for electric 
cooktops to gas cooktops, the test does not require preheating of the 
gas burner. A gas system will change rates and how

[[Page 17950]]

it performs as it warms. The European test for gas products has a 10 
minute preheat because the working group that developed that test found 
that preheating improved the representativeness of the test results as 
well as repeatability and reproducibility. The ASTM test has a 30 
minute stabilization period at 50 percent heat for the same reason. 
Thus, DOE's failure to include preheating in the gas test ignores the 
wisdom generated by other groups' extensive testing and experience and 
likely contributes to the high degree of variation we describe below.
    7. The pots specified by the European electric test are different 
than the pots used in the European gas cooktop test. The gas pots are 
Aluminum test pans having a matt base and polished walls--that material 
is of the highest level of conduction. The electric test pans are a 
very thick stainless steel plate (6 mm) with thin stainless walls (1 
mm) that are joined by a heat resistant glue. The pan construction is 
significantly different which will have an impact on heat transfer from 
the burner to the pan. The pot spacing of the large flat corner pans 
designed for electric cooktops will perform differently with the gas 
burners compared to the EN specified Aluminum pots and will not drive 
representative results. A gas flame heats a pot differently and this 
should be accounted for in the test.
    DOE did not assess a sufficient variety of gas cooktop designs to 
conclude that the test procedure it adopted is representative for gas 
products, especially in light of Europe's use of a different procedure 
for residential gas products. As highlighted above, the residual heat 
loss of a gas burner on simmer is significantly different than simmer 
on electric unit where the electric unit retains heat from the cooktop. 
DOE also has specified stainless steel pans whereas the European 
procedure for gas cooktops uses Aluminum, which has a higher level of 
conduction. The pan construction is also different which will have an 
impact on heat transfer from the burner to the pan.
    AHAM has not been the only commenter to question the 
representativeness of extending the European electric test procedure to 
gas cooktops. During the test procedure rulemaking, Southern California 
Gas Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison 
(collectively, the Southern California investor-owned utilities (SoCal 
IOUs)) commented that DOE should conduct a sensitivity analysis of the 
impact of ambient temperature and pressure conditions on the test 
results for gas and electric cooking products in order to ensure 
consistent test results across various regions, climates, and 
altitudes. In addition, the SoCal IOUs commented that validating the 
ambient condition requirements would address the impact of the proposed 
correction to the gas heating value to standard temperature and 
pressure conditions. DOE responded only that it incorporated the 
ambient air pressure and temperature conditions specified in EN 60350-
2:2013 and thus believed that the results ``should not'' be impacted by 
tests being conducted in different locations.\4\ But DOE did not do any 
additional testing to determine if that is in fact the case and, as 
discussed below in Section II, AHAM's testing demonstrates 
reproducibility issues which could be attributed, in part, to these 
differences. Moreover, efficiency for a gas cooktop depends heavily on 
the external environment, much more so than for electric products. 
Simmering is, thus, not the right parameter to measure the ability to 
keep the control in this technology. That is yet another reason why the 
European gas test does not include the simmer setting--it will be 
variable and inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Final Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 91418, 91434 (Dec. 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the U.S. market consists of a wide array of grate and 
burner offerings to consumers and DOE did not sufficiently assess those 
offerings in developing the test procedure. DOE itself acknowledged 283 
gas configurations.\5\ Yet DOE tested only five units. The varying 
designs available to consumers, most of which DOE did not assess, have 
offerings of a sealed/unsealed burner, stacked burner, different burner 
shapes, a range of grate weight and shape, and different grate 
materials. DOE has not shown that the test procedure is repeatable and 
reproducible for the different designs on the marketplace. For DOE to 
conclude these issues do not exist simply because it did not observe 
them in its small test sample is illogical. DOE made assumptions that 
are not supported by sufficient data and are in direct conflict with 
the technical support for the European gas test and ASTM standard which 
drove those procedures to have a pre-heat requirement, to exclude a 
simmer assessment, and to use specifically constructed Aluminum pans. 
Until and unless DOE can demonstrate that data show the cooktop test 
procedure is representative of actual U.S. consumer use of gas cooktops 
and will deliver accurate results, DOE should withdraw the test 
procedure. Keeping it in place will very likely result in inaccurate 
information to consumers and is contrary to EPCA's and the 
Administrative Procedure Act's requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. At 91438 (``DOE surveyed 335 electric cooking tops and 
283 gas cooking tops available on the market in the United 
States.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. DOE Has Not Demonstrated That The Test Procedure Is Repeatable or 
Reproducible For Gas Cooktops.

A. Lab to Lab Variation
    Because of the short comment period on the August 2016 SNOPR, AHAM 
was not able to conduct a round robin to assess the repeatability and 
reproducibility of the test procedure for gas products. And DOE had no 
data regarding repeatability or reproducibility upon which to rely. DOE 
instead relied on a European Committee of Domestic Equipment 
Manufacturers (CECED) round robin conducted five years ago on electric 
cooktops. But, that round robin is irrelevant. As discussed above, 
Europe does not extend its electric cooktop test procedure to gas 
cooktops for good reason. DOE would be the first to do that. Thus, 
there is no historical data for that test procedure. Therefore, AHAM 
commented that DOE should evaluate its proposed procedure even more 
carefully and in more detail than the electric cooktop test procedure. 
Repeatability and reproducibility cannot be established based only on 
DOE's limited within lab testing and complete lack of lab to lab 
testing.
    In order to address AHAM's concerns, DOE conducted investigative 
testing on gas cooktops in support of the Final Rule. DOE conducted 
testing on five gas cooking tops that covered a range of burner input 
rates, installation widths (two 30 inch and three 36 inch), burner 
quantities (two four burner, three six burner), and grate weights. To 
evaluate variation in the test, DOE conducted two to three tests on 
each burner. For each individual test, DOE performed the full test 
method, including the preliminary test required to determine the 
turndown temperature and simmering setting for a given burner. DOE also 
included test results from previous testing conducted in support of the 
August 2016 SNOPR. The coefficient of variation DOE observed for the 
measured AEC for its test sample was, on average 1.0 percent. DOE also 
noted that the average per-cycle energy consumption coefficient of 
variation for each burner was 1.7 percent.
    DOE based its Final Rule conclusions regarding total variation of 
the entire plethora of cooktops in the marketplace on only this meager 
five unit sample

[[Page 17951]]

and a simulated round robin. DOE's testing did not truly test 
reproducibility from lab to lab because DOE simply used different 
technicians for some of its tests. DOE did not conduct testing on the 
same units in different labs. It makes sense that under those 
conditions--using the same laboratory equipment and test technicians 
trained in the same laboratory--variation would be lower. Moreover, 
this assessment looks at within lab variation and not total variation. 
As discussed below regarding DOE's electric cooktop testing, DOE's 
testing is insufficient to support a conclusion that the test procedure 
for gas cooktops is repeatable and reproducible and, thus, is 
insufficient to support the final test procedure.
    Moreover, because DOE tested such a small sample the confidence 
level of its results is low (the same is true for electric cooktops). 
For a sample size of five, trying to represent the millions of units 
that will be produced and the tens of different labs that will be doing 
testing this inherently has a large margin of error as shown in Figure 
2.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., www.surveysystem.com.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP18.007
    
    Based on this sample size, results can vary plus or minus 26 
percent. We fully understand that a larger sample size is a function of 
cost and that there are limitations on the amount of further testing 
that can be done. Nevertheless, it is important not to lose sight of 
the fact that DOE's sample size results in as much as 50 percent in 
variation on the expected results. Thus, it is no surprise that AHAM's 
testing has shown significant variation that DOE's did not. This large 
confidence interval, which the difference between DOE's and AHAM's test 
results bear out, further supports AHAM's request that DOE withdraw the 
cooktop test procedure. A test procedure that could be required to 
demonstrate compliance with possible energy conservation standards 
should not be finalized with such a high confidence interval, 
particularly when conflicting data has been provided to highlight this 
high confidence interval. At a minimum, this demonstrates that DOE's 
data alone and when added together with AHAM's data raises significant 
questions about whether the test is repeatable and reproducible. Thus, 
DOE's Final Rule is not supported by adequate data and could be 
considered arbitrary and capricious.
    Moreover, as with electric cooktops and discussed more fully below, 
DOE did not engage stakeholders--either manufacturer labs or third 
party labs--in its assessment of the Final Rule. Thus, based on DOE's 
testing, neither DOE nor stakeholders have any idea what the actual 
test procedure total variation is.
    In order to assess whether the final test procedure for gas 
cooktops is repeatable and reproducible, after DOE issued the final 
test procedure rule, AHAM conducted a round robin on gas cooktops. It 
is likely that even more testing would be helpful in better 
understanding both the test procedure and its variation, but these 
results are enough to demonstrate that there is sufficient doubt 
regarding the gas cooktop test procedure's accuracy such that DOE 
should withdraw it.
    AHAM's gas cooktop round robin included four units (two cooktops 
and two ranges), with a range of product types.\7\ Four labs tested the 
burners with the highest and lowest burner input rates (i.e., one high 
capacity and one low capacity burner was tested for each unit).\8\ Each 
burner was tested three times each using the procedure specified in the 
DOE Final Rule. Labs recorded the simmering setting selection for the 
energy test cycle and the first laboratory marked the turn down 
temperature. AHAM's test plan is attached in Exhibit B and AHAM 
provided Navigant with raw data under a confidentiality agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A summary of the test unit characteristics is attached at 
Exhibit B and data in Exhibit C.
    \8\ Unit A was tested by five labs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that some of the tests could not meet the specified ambient 
temperature requirements. Specifically, some of the laboratories were 
not able to hold the ambient temperature as required during the 
duration of the test. Manufacturers ran the tests in the tightest 
environments that are currently available at +/-5 [deg]F in their 
laboratories. The Final Rule requires new equipment to maintain +/-2 
[deg]F, which is difficult or, in some cases, impossible to do in 
existing laboratories. Section IV below further discusses this point. 
The labs that ran the tests have been approved by the safety 
certification bodies and Canadian Energy Verification organization. We 
removed the most errant runs and included the test data to show the 
variation that was noticeable during our tests as it is representative 
of the current lab capability. Importantly, improving the ability to 
maintain ambient temperature will involve significant upgrades to 
laboratories, which will add cost and burden for manufacturers.
    As mentioned above, AHAM's test plan called for running the test 
differently than the DOE test by having the first laboratory mark the 
turn down temperature it used. AHAM understands that this is not fully

[[Page 17952]]

consistent with DOE's test procedure. But, because the test procedure 
is unduly burdensome to conduct, as discussed below, this method was 
necessary to reduce the test burden--reducing the number of possible 
settings for the cooktop was seen as a worthwhile experiment. 
Importantly, it was not always possible for laboratories to use the 
marked temperature and so, in several instances, laboratories followed 
DOE's test procedure to the letter. In the end, only half of the labs 
were able to follow AHAM's test plan. The other half ran the test 
according to the DOE test procedure as written. Our data below 
differentiates these methods by referring to the tests that used the 
marked turndown temperature as the ``truncated test'' or ``preset.''
    The DOE test procedure tried to address some of the variation that 
is not controllable in the methodology of its burdensome test 
procedure--e.g., heating values, different ambient temperatures, 
equipment, and technicians. AHAM's methodology was an effort to 
determine if the extra burden aimed at reducing that variation reduced 
it enough to justify the extra time, labor, and cost. Our conclusion: 
it is not. Although neither method showed results with an acceptable 
level of variation, the runs that used the truncated test resulted in 
less variation. Regardless, the results cast significant doubt on DOE's 
small amount of supporting data for the Final Rule and support AHAM's 
request that DOE withdraw it.
    Good lab practice is that within lab variation should clearly be 
less than two percent. For current data acceptance programs within the 
appliance industry, it is common practice that data between labs should 
be no more than three percent variation. DOE's data within its own lab 
fell within the target zone for variation for four of the five units 
DOE tested. DOE did not test at different labs, so the Final Rule is 
not based on any accurate lab-to-lab data showing an acceptable range 
of lab-to-lab variation.
    AHAM's round robin shows similar results to DOE's in terms of 
within lab variation. Significantly, however, as shown in Table 1, lab-
to-lab variation considerably exceeds the three percent maximum lab-to-
lab variation target regardless of whether the full DOE test was run or 
the truncated test was run.

                                                      Table 1--AHAM Gas Round Robin Summary Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       Coefficient of    Coefficient of
                                                                                                      Average annual   variation --1    variation across
            Cooking unit                   Width         Number of     Minimum input   Maximum input      energy            lab          multiple labs
                                                          burners      rate (Btu/hr)   rate (Btu/hr)    consumption   (repeatability)  (reproducibility)
                                                                                                         (kBtu/yr)          (%)               (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM A--set.........................              36               5           8,000          18,000           936.3             0.89               3.60
AHAM A--Preset......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           918.7             0.68               2.30
AHAM B..............................              30               4           5,000          15,000         1,034.1             9.20              17.10
AHAM B--Preset......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           870.1             1.70              13.50
AHAM C..............................              30               4           5,000          15,000           843.1             2.70              12.50
AHAM C--Preset......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           827.9             1.80               7.00
AHAM D..............................              30               5           5,500          18,000         1,077.2             0.78              12.00
AHAM D--Preset......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,123             1.59              12.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This highlights the significant gap in the data DOE used to justify 
the rule. DOE assumed that low variation in one lab means repeatability 
and reproducibility across labs. But AHAM's round robin demonstrates 
that this is not the case. Our round robin shows reproducibility is not 
present in the current procedure as demonstrated by only one of the 
three units, Unit A, having an acceptable coefficient of variation 
across labs. Notably, the low input rate on that burner is 8,000 BTU. 
AHAM units B, C, and D all have low capacity burner rates of or about 
5,000 BTU. DOE only tested one of its five units with a low capacity 
burner at 5,000 BTU. DOE's coefficient of variation for that model was 
1.40 percent. Some of the best AHAM single lab coefficients of 
variation for models at that rate are 0.78, 1.59, 1.70, and 1.80 
percent. The AHAM data would appear to agree that one lab can repeat 
the same results, but that is not the full story.
    Focusing on the units with low simmer rates and digging deeper into 
the data, AHAM's data show the following:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP18.008

     On all units except one, Unit B, the repeatability on the 
high capacity burner within the lab had acceptable variation but the 
reproducibility across labs did not. Overall, on the high capacity 
burner, the variation was higher using the DOE test procedure than it 
was using the truncated test and none of the variation was within an 
acceptable range from lab-to-lab.

[[Page 17953]]

     On all units, the repeatability on the low capacity burner 
was marginal--25 percent of the time the variation was greater than the 
two percent maximum target. There is a distinct difference in the low 
capacity variation and the three units that had simmer at or near 5,000 
BTU had significant repeatability and reproducibility issues. In some 
cases, using the truncated test actually improved lab-to-lab variation. 
This demonstrates that the burden associated with determining the turn 
down temperature in DOE's full test procedure is not always justified--
it does not categorically improve repeatability and reproducibility. 
Thus, not only is DOE's final test procedure rule unsupported by 
sufficient data to demonstrate its reproducibility, but it is also 
unduly burdensome to conduct. In addition, this highlights the weakness 
in the DOE test procedure which conducts a water boil and simmer test 
on small burners that are not meant for either purpose. As discussed 
above in Section I, those burners are designed to provide a simmer only 
cooking function for melting chocolate and cooking sauces, not for 
boiling or simmering water.
B. Within Unit And Between Unit Variation
    DOE did not evaluate or account for variation within units. There 
are issues inherent in testing gas cooktops and ranges that contribute 
significantly to within unit variation. For example, heating value, gas 
pressure, and atmospheric pressures all have an impact. More 
specifically, as atmospheric pressure changes due to weather, test 
results will vary even on the same unit from day to day. Also, gas 
pressure and atmospheric pressure can vary from run to run, and that 
can have an impact on how the gas is mixing within the burner port 
which then impacts burner combustion and energy creation. Moreover, 
heating values vary within a lab on a daily basis and likely vary 
greatly between labs. Thus, the same unit tested on different days in 
the same lab or in different labs will not perform the same unless the 
heating value of the gas is the same. That is statistically unlikely 
because values vary every day. It is not likely that the heating value 
is 1075, so there is a conversion from what it actually was to 1075 and 
this artificial adjustment induces variation. Each of these factors, 
among others, individually and collectively contribute to variation 
from test to test and DOE has made no effort to understand the impact 
of these factors.
    This inherent variation in gas cooking product testing has been 
known for decades and is the reason the safety test, ANSI Z21.1, 
requires certified technicians to drill testing orifices. The drilling 
of orifices achieves precise rates for nominal, high, and low values. 
Experience shows that certified gas technicians can dial in the precise 
values for assessment by using number sized drills but there are also 
factors the technician must manage in this process such as burrs from 
the drilling. AHAM is not suggesting that DOE require testing orifices 
be drilled for purposes of energy testing--the burden is significant to 
say the least and would make the test unduly burdensome to conduct. 
Although such burden is justified for purposes of ensuring the safety 
of cooking products, which carry inherent safety risks, it is not 
justified for purposes of energy testing. And, because safety testing 
is not similar to energy testing (for example, cooktops are tested on 
high for hours and products are over-stressed in abnormal conditions), 
it is not possible to re-use the units tested for safety purposes for 
energy testing.
    In addition, neither DOE nor AHAM have evaluated or accounted for 
the additional variation inherent in producing gas products, i.e., 
between unit variation. This is significant because it will add further 
variation on top of the within lab variation, lab to lab variation, and 
within unit variation. In order to ensure compliance with any future 
energy conservation standard, manufacturers will have to take this 
total variation into account. The result will likely be that it becomes 
difficult or impossible to meet standards because the buffer needed to 
ensure accurate ratings will require levels of efficiency that are not 
economically justified or technologically feasible. AHAM explored this 
concept in more detail in its comments on DOE's proposed standards, 
which we hereby incorporate by reference.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ AHAM Comments on DOE's SNOPR for Energy Conservation 
Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products; Docket No. 
EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005; RIN 1904-AD15 (Nov. 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the test requirements that will vary within the unit is the 
simmer setting on gas products. Subsequent to AHAM's round robin, Lab 
Three conducted some additional investigative testing to determine 
whether using the same simmering setting improves repeatability. The 
lab used two different operators to test a unit and provided both with 
the same instructions, which are identified in Exhibit A. The test plan 
was as follows:
    1. Operator F conducted the test and found the simmer setting and 
gas flow;
    2. Operator M conducted the test independently and found a simmer 
setting and gas flow;
    3. Operator M repeated the test using the Operator F simmer 
setting; and
    4. Operator F repeated the test using the Operator M simmer 
setting.
    The results show that technicians are likely to be able to work to 
achieve passing results on their own efforts to determine a simmering 
setting. But when given the target setting, the results show that it is 
likely that different technicians cannot recreate a first technician's 
passing result about half of the time.
    The data also highlight that there are more issues with finding the 
right simmer setting on low capacity burners--the Lab Three technicians 
each failed the first time they tried to set the low capacity burner. 
Also, see in Exhibit A where an additional experiment was run with one 
of Lab Four's technicians developing the simmer setting without using 
the previously provided information. This resulted in different energy 
average and lower variation values between the two Lab 4 technicians.
    According to these results, relying on a given setting actually 
increased variation and retests due to failing performance. Thus, 
though recording the turn down temperature as required by the Final 
Rule may help understand differences in results between labs, it does 
not reduce variation. And it does not seem that simply following the 
test procedure to the letter, as DOE suggested in response to AHAM's 
comments and discussed in Section II below, reduces variation. AHAM's 
test results demonstrate that additional efforts to reduce variation on 
turndown settings were unsuccessful--even standardizing the simmering 
setting does not drive sufficient variation reduction. (Moreover, for 
gas products, it will not be possible to specify turndown settings for 
gas products due to orifice variation, which is discussed in more 
detail below). Accordingly, because DOE's final test procedure does not 
sufficiently reduce total variation, DOE should withdraw the cooktop 
test procedure.
C. Full Population and Total Variation
    As stated previously, DOE's small sample size could not address the 
full population or total variation. Table 2 below lists the units have 
been tested to the final test procedure as specified

[[Page 17954]]

from both DOE's sample and AHAM's sample and Figure 3 shows the samples 
and their results graphically.

                                                                           Table 2--DOE and AHAM Test Samples Combined
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                               Coefficient of   Coeffiecient of
                                                             Minimum      Maximum                                                   Grate     Average annual   variation --1    variation across
           Cooking unit              Width     Number of    input rate   input rate  Burner configuration       Grate type        weight per      energy            lab          multiple labs
                                                burners      (Btu/hr)     (Btu/hr)                                               burner lbs)    consumption   (repeatability)  (reproducibility)
                                                                                                                                                 (kBtu/yr)          (%)               (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE 1............................         30            4        9,000        9,000  open................  Steel-wire..........          0.5           640.4             2.40               N/A
DOE 2............................         30            4        5,000       15,000  Sealed..............  Cast Iron...........          3.7           854.4             1.40               N/A
DOE 3............................         36            6       18,000       18,000  Sealed--stacked.....  Cast Iron...........          4.4           974.8             0.40               N/A
DOE 4............................         36            6        9,200       15,000  Sealed--stacked.....  Cast iron--                   5.8           963.5             0.30               N/A
                                                                                                            Continuous.
DOE 5............................         36            6       15,000       18,500  Sealed..............  Cast iron--                     7           893.1             0.30               N/A
                                                                                                            Continuous.
AHAM A...........................         36            5        8,000       18,000  Sealed--stacked?....  Cast iron--                     ?           936.3             0.89              3.60
                                                                                                            Continuous.
AHAM B...........................         30            4        5,000       15,000  Sealed..............  Cast Iron...........            ?         1,034.1             9.20             17.10
AHAM C...........................         30            4        5,000       15,000  Sealed..............  Cast Iron...........            ?           843.1             2.70             12. 5
AHAM D...........................         30            5        5,500       18,000  Sealed..............  Cast Iron...........            ?         1,077.2             0.78             12.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                                                               [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP18.009
                                                                                                                                                                               
    Figure 3 shows the units tested and what their AAEC number is 
versus their lowest burner capacity rating. It highlights how skewed 
the DOE sampling was, especially as compared to AHAM's. As discussed 
above in Section I, DOE identified that nearly half of the models in 
the market had a 5,000 BTU burner. Yet, DOE selected only one unit with 
a burner of that capacity. Aside from the fact that DOE's sample 
inadequately represents the market, this demonstrates that DOE's test 
procedure will produce inaccurate results for most of the gas products 
on the market. The test has a high degree of variation for those 
products, as shown above, and, thus, the test will not allow consumers 
to compare across products.
    Neither DOE nor AHAM have evaluated or accounted for the all of the 
variation inherent in producing gas products, i.e., total variation 
across the population. It is a large task and assuming the small amount 
of work applies to the total picture is not acceptable and further 
supports the withdrawal of the test procedure.

III. DOE Has Not Demonstrated That The Test Procedure Is Repeatable Or 
Reproducible For Electric Cooktops.

    As discussed above, in response to the August 2016 SNOPR, based on 
round-robin testing, AHAM identified several sources of potential 
variation that needed to be resolved prior to DOE finalizing a cooktop 
test procedure. DOE conducted additional testing in order to evaluate 
AHAM's concerns and made clarifications to attempt to address many of 
them. Unfortunately, DOE's testing was not sufficient to demonstrate 
that the final test procedure significantly reduced the high degree of 
total variation AHAM identified in its comments. AHAM does not agree 
that the final test procedure is sufficiently repeatable and 
reproducible. Accordingly, AHAM respectfully requests that DOE withdraw 
the cooktop test procedure.
A. DOE's Testing
    DOE did not do enough testing to verify that its clarifications 
resulted in a final test procedure that is repeatable and reproducible 
and, so, the Final Rule is not supported by sufficient data. DOE 
conducted testing of five electric cooktops incorporating different 
heating technologies (one coil element cooktop, two radiant element 
cooktops, and two induction cooktops) and control types (four with step 
controls and one with infinite). For each unit, DOE conducted testing 
on surface units capturing a range of heating element sizes. DOE 
conducted two to three tests per surface unit. For each individual 
test, DOE performed the full surface unit test method, including the 
preliminary test required to determine the turndown temperature and 
simmering setting for a given surface unit. DOE varied test operators 
for surface unit tests, but did not test at different laboratories. DOE 
also included test results from previous tests of these units conducted 
in support of the August 2016 SNOPR.
    AHAM appreciates that DOE conducted this testing. But it is not 
enough to justify finalizing the test procedure. DOE did not complete 
full tests--it tested only two to three burners. Although that is 
helpful in assessing potential variation, AHAM is

[[Page 17955]]

concerned that DOE would finalize a rule based on the results of only 
partial tests.
    DOE's testing demonstrates a low average coefficient of variation 
of 1.2 percent. It is uncertain whether those results are accurate 
given that DOE did assess the full IAEC for an entire cooktop. But, 
assuming that the partial tests do give a reasonable understanding of 
repeatability and reproducibility, DOE has not identified why DOE's 
coefficient of variation was so much lower than AHAM's.
    One potential reason is that DOE's testing did not truly test 
reproducibility from lab to lab--DOE simply used different technicians 
for some of its tests. DOE did not conduct testing on the same units in 
different labs. It makes sense that under those conditions--using the 
same laboratory equipment and test technicians trained in the same 
laboratory--variation would be lower. DOE's test parameters did not 
accurately simulate reproducibility. The simulation run by DOE only 
changed the test technician. It is unclear from DOE's analysis if those 
technicians had previous knowledge of the procedure or were allowed to 
imprint their interpretation on the execution of the test. DOE did not 
simulate running the test with different equipment and a different 
environment, as would be run in a true round robin.
    Conversely, AHAM's tests were conducted on the same units in three 
(now four) different laboratories. Those laboratories have different 
technicians with different training, different equipment, and, 
potentially, different interpretations of the test procedure. These 
true round robin conditions are far more likely to reveal ambiguity in 
the test and sensitivities that cause variation. They also replicate a 
real scenario--one lab attempting to verify the results of a different 
lab. As discussed above in Section II, the testing conducted to date, 
necessarily, has a low confidence level and the differences between 
AHAM's and DOE's results demonstrate that. AHAM's testing resulted in 
significantly higher variation than DOE's and the large confidence 
interval that results supports AHAM's request for DOE to withdraw the 
cooktop test procedure.
    Moreover, DOE did not engage stakeholders--either manufacturer labs 
or third party labs--in its assessment of the Final Rule. Thus, based 
on DOE's testing, neither DOE nor stakeholders have any idea what the 
actual total test procedure variation is. The test laboratory DOE used 
to run the tests in support of the proposed and final rules will not be 
a lab that regularly runs the test procedure when reporting and/or 
compliance with standards is potentially required. (The labs that 
participated in AHAM's round robin, will, of course, be conducting 
testing to demonstrate compliance with any potential future standards). 
Thus, because DOE's reproducibility testing is essentially theoretical 
and only simulates a round robin test, DOE's testing is helpful, but 
not enough to determine the repeatability and reproducibility of the 
test.
B. Determining the Simmering Setting
    AHAM commented that there is variability in determining the 
simmering setting for the simmering phase of the test and noted that 
the simmering setting plays an important role in the overshoot 
temperature and the ability to maintain a temperature as close as 
possible to 90 [deg]C during the simmering phase of the test.
    DOE responded that it expects that correctly following the 
methodology--starting with the lowest simmering setting and repeating 
the test as necessary with the next highest setting until the setting 
that maintains the water temperature above, but as close as possible to 
90 [deg]C, is identified--will result in only a single appropriate 
simmering setting for a given surface unit.
    DOE agreed with AHAM that the selection of the simmering setting 
has a significant impact on the overall energy consumption of a surface 
unit and amended Appendix I to require that the simmering setting 
selection for the energy test cycle of each cooking area/zone be 
recorded. AHAM appreciates that DOE required recording the simmering 
setting selection--it will help in enforcement/verification actions to 
understand differences in test results. Unfortunately, recording the 
setting will do nothing to decrease variation or prevent false findings 
of potential noncompliance.
    AHAM acknowledges that in its initial round robin, laboratories did 
not start at the lowest simmering setting--laboratories started at the 
lowest setting they believed would be able to maintain a water 
temperature above and as close as possible to 90 [deg]C. AHAM is a 
proponent of conducting the test that way in order to reduce test 
burden which, as discussed further below, is already significant.
    Nevertheless, in order to understand if variation would decrease by 
following the letter of the test procedure as DOE suggested in the 
Final Rule, AHAM, in conducting a round robin on gas cooktops, required 
participating laboratories to (a) follow the DOE test procedure for 
selection of the simmering setting; (b) record their simmering setting; 
and (c) for the first lab, mark the turn down temperature on the unit 
itself.\10\ Our data, which are discussed above in Section II, show 
that following the letter of the test procedure does not sufficiently 
reduce variation. In particular, lab-to-lab variation remains high for 
gas cooktops and AHAM's round robin testing for electric cooktops 
provided data to support a conclusion that it is likely also high for 
electric cooktops. DOE did not adequately address AHAM's concern in its 
Final Rule and AHAM's gas testing casts further doubt on this question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Results of the AHAM gas round robin are discussed in 
Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM incorporates by reference the data we submitted to DOE during 
the rulemaking regarding our electric round robin, which is summarized 
in the below tables. These data highlight that the simmer setting is a 
significant source of variation. Because DOE has not yet adequately 
addressed it, and, thus has not sufficiently demonstrated that its test 
procedure is valid, DOE should withdraw the cooktop test procedure.

[[Page 17956]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP18.012

C. Spiking Temperatures When Reaching 90 [deg]C
    AHAM commented that our round robin demonstrated difficulty in 
determining when the water temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C to start 
the 20-minute simmering phase of the test because, when the temperature 
first reaches that temperature, it may oscillate slightly above or 
below it. DOE's testing showed similar fluctuations. Thus, DOE amended 
Appendix I to clarify that the 20-minute simmering period starts when 
the water temperature first reaches 90 [deg]C and does not drop below 
90 [deg]C for more than 20 seconds after initially reaching 90 [deg]C.
    AHAM thanks DOE for making this clarification which seems like it 
could reduce variation. DOE's testing--completed in a single lab and 
with technicians trained in the same lab--does not, however, adequately 
demonstrate that this clarification sufficiently reduces variation and 
improves reproducibility. AHAM's members were not able to dedicate 
resources to re-performing a round robin to verify DOE's findings on a 
single unit. Without knowing whether total variation has, in fact, been 
reduced, DOE should not have finalized the test procedure and DOE 
cannot rely on assumptions that this change will reduce total 
variation--to do so could be considered arbitrary and capricious. Total 
variation is made up of within lab and between lab variations AND 
within and between units variations. DOE only addressed some of the 
within lab variation causes, meaning that other causes of variation are 
unaddressed. DOE does not have sufficient data to demonstrate that the 
test procedure is reproducible and should withdraw the test.
D. Heating Element Cycling
    AHAM commented that cycling of power to the heating element is 
unpredictable and causes variation in test results. It is unknown if 
the surface unit will cycle the heating element off during a critical 
phase of the test--i.e., at the start of the simmering phase or when 
determining the simmering setting. In response to DOE's September 27, 
2016 data request, AHAM provided further data on how this was observed 
during our testing. DOE could not have reviewed or considered that data 
in drafting the Final Rule given that the Final Rule was issued the 
same day AHAM provided the data. AHAM incorporates the data we 
submitted on November 23, 2016, in this petition by reference.
    DOE did, however, examine its own data. DOE indicated that it 
observed only one electric smooth-radiant cooktop in its sample for 
which the heater cycled on and off during the heat-up phase of the 
test. That particular unit cycled back on within a few seconds of 
cycling off and, as a result, the water temperature continued to rise 
at a ``fairly steady state.'' Thus, DOE concluded that it was 
infrequent for heating elements to cycle during the heat-up phase and, 
so, it was unlikely that other electric smooth-radiant cooktops would 
require any substantive amount of heating element cycling to protect 
the glass surface. DOE indicated that it did not expect any measurable 
impacts of heating element cycling on the total measured per-cycle 
energy consumption.
    DOE based its conclusions on the single unit in its sample and is 
guessing that because only one unit in its small sample did not cycle 
on and off during the heat-up phase, it must not occur frequently and/
or if it does, it will not have a measurable impact on the total per-
cycle energy consumption. But AHAM also observed element cycling during 
its testing. Thus, in only the small amount of testing conducted in the 
U.S. to date, unit cycling during the heat-up phase has been observed 
twice.

[[Page 17957]]

That is not insignificant. Almost 20 percent of units in the combined 
AHAM and DOE tested sample experienced unit cycling.
    Moreover, AHAM submitted additional data to DOE regarding the unit 
cycling it observed. As mentioned in that data submission, AHAM tested 
two eight-inch coil elements on different cooktops with the same model 
number to evaluate unit to unit variation. One cooktop cycled during 
the T70 turndown test and the other did not. The unit that cycled 
resulted in a higher turn down temperature when compared to the test 
that did not cycle. The unit did not cycle on either test run during 
the final T90 simmer test. The high Tc value caused one test run to 
have a higher overshoot and allowed for a lower turn down during the 
simmer phase driving unit to unit variation. This resulted in 36 watts 
less power on the unit with the lower turn down. This is six percent of 
the normalized power level. Six percent is not insignificant and 
demonstrates the potential difference between the energy measured on 
two units of the same construction. DOE should withdraw the Final Rule 
for cooktops and review and consider the data AHAM submitted. This 
issue must be addressed in order to reduce total variation.
    Furthermore, DOE did not address the arguments AHAM made about the 
uncertainty regarding how unit cycling will impact test results and 
test burden--this is a significant concern and could drive redesign of 
products. Heating element cycling is key to cooking performance for 
electric ranges because the algorithm that governs heating element 
cycling controls the temperature of the food being cooked. If the 
temperature is not properly maintained, the consistency of the food can 
change. Moreover, for smooth top electric ranges, heating element 
cycling also serves a safety function. Such cooktops are equipped with 
a glass break sensor to monitor temperature. That sensor will dictate 
when a unit needs to cycle down to avoid glass breakage. AHAM is 
concerned that the test procedure, as finalized by DOE, could drive 
changes to the algorithm for heating element cycling design. Any such 
changes will result in significant product development efforts which 
have not been accounted for in DOE's test procedure rulemaking. A test 
procedure change should not dictate this sort of design change simply 
to manage uncertainty and variation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ It is possible, for example, consumers often jump from one 
side (rolling boil) to the other side (boil action lost) a couple of 
times before they understand where to set the dial to maintain their 
desired simmering temperature. If manufacturers make the dials more 
precise in order to reduce variation in the energy test, that could 
result in more settings and consumers could change back and forth 
more times because they see less impact in adjusting the knob. This 
could actually drive consumers to use more energy in the field. 
Accordingly, DOE should examine potential unintended consequences of 
addressing this uncertainty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, DOE should withdraw the cooktop test procedure 
due to total variation that is not fully understood and, from available 
data, appears to be at an unacceptable level.
E. Upcoming New Cooktop Designs
    As AHAM has commented to DOE many times, Underwriters Laboratory 
(UL) Standard 858 will soon require a new test for electric coil 
element cooktops. The change to the voluntary safety standard, which 
AHAM developed and proposed to UL with the support of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, will require electric coil element cooktops 
and ranges to monitor and limit pan bottom temperature and is aimed at 
reducing the incidences of unattended cooking fires. It represents a 
major redesign for all electric coil cooktops by every manufacturer. 
The change will be required to show compliance on coil cooktops with 
the updated voluntary safety standard as of June 15, 2018.
    Given the date of this requirement, it is certain that any cooktop 
standard DOE may promulgate (and AHAM opposes any change to the 
existing standards for conventional cooking products) would apply to 
these newly designed products. But, because these products are still in 
development, DOE has not done testing on products using these controls 
and neither have manufacturers. Because company designs to comply with 
the UL 858 requirements may involve cycling of the element, it is quite 
possible that heating element cycling will be different than it is for 
existing products. Thus, DOE's data, even as supplemented by AHAM's 
data, on heating element cycling may be irrelevant because it does not 
represent products that will be on the market if the test is required 
to demonstrate compliance with possible energy conservation standards.
    As shown in Figure 4, initial data, based on testing conducted by 
Primaria LLC to develop UL 858's new requirements, show that though 
time to boil water may not increase significantly using temperature 
limiting controls on coil cooktops, the difference could be enough to 
further impact the current assumptions on variation. And, the control 
cycling could be somewhat different as well. DOE should understand how 
the energy test will respond to these new technologies.

[[Page 17958]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP18.010

F. Pan Warpage
    Although DOE sought feedback on the degree to which the heating 
element or cookware may deform and impact the heat transfer between the 
two surfaces in its rulemaking on energy conservation standards for 
cooktops, DOE did not investigate the impact of pan warpage on the 
repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure.
    The UL 858 test for coil cooktops initially required use of an 
aluminum pan. But, based on manufacturer experience doing significant 
testing, AHAM proposed a cast iron alternative to aluminum pans for the 
test. UL published this update in August of 2017. The shift is to 
account for warping and the variation and lack of repeatability it is 
driving in the safety assessment. There is no reason to believe this 
variation will not also extend to energy testing.
    The data from the UL 858 work with Primaira show that any variation 
in pans of the same type will drive variation that the energy testing 
has not yet shown because the pans have yet to warp substantially. 
Significantly, using a warped stainless steel pan on a ceramic cooktop 
did increase the boil time with the cooktop fire mitigation control 
active (that control cycles the element on and off per an algorithm). 
And, warpage on stainless steel pans style will cause a difference in 
energy use on units without a limiting control as shown in Figure 5. 
DOE's failure to further investigate this issue means that its test 
procedure is not adequately supported.

[[Page 17959]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP18.011

IV. The Cooktop Test Procedure Is Unduly Burdensome To Conduct.

    The discussion in the sections above highlights several significant 
burdens associated with conducting DOE's cooktop test procedure that 
AHAM believes make it unduly burdensome to conduct. Specifically:
     The test procedure takes about 20 hours for an average 
four burner cooktop and requires the testing of every single burner or 
element individually. And, because the test requires the technician to 
determine the turn-down temperature before every test and the ambient 
conditions are quite tight, several runs are often required before a 
valid run can be achieved. Our testing found that some tests took 
upward of five days for a single cooktop.
     As indicated by AHAM's truncated gas test plan, it is 
burdensome to determine the turn down temperature for each individual 
test and burner. And doing so does not serve any purpose as it appears 
that it does not decrease variation.
     The ambient temperature requirements are incredibly tight 
and it is difficult or impossible for some laboratories to meet them 
without investing in lab improvements. Some companies had difficulty 
maintaining the ambient conditions and AHAM could not use their data in 
its round robin results.
     Test pots will warp during testing and will need to either 
be repaired or replaced frequently.
     The test procedure variation means that manufacturers will 
need to add a larger than usual ``buffer'' to any eventual energy 
conservation standards ratings, which will effectively increase the 
stringency of any future standard, probably by a large amount.
    In addition to the test burden itself, there is also substantial 
cost associated with the test procedure. DOE determined that the test 
procedure would cost $700 per test for labor, with a one-time 
investment of $2,000 for new test equipment, which was split between 
test pots and other instrumentation. AHAM collected data from its 
members on the cost of the test procedure, both ongoing and initial 
investments. This data is based on company experience with the test 
through AHAM's round robins and in testing in Europe, on the number of 
models each company has, and on the potential need for third party 
testing. AHAM's data show that DOE significantly underestimated the 
cost associated with running the cooktop test procedure.
    Table 3 below shows the difference between DOE's estimates in the 
Final Rule and AHAM's data.

                               Table 3--Per Test Costs (DOE Estimate v. AHAM Data)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Cooktop full product line                 One time (initial year)            On-going (annual)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Per test costs (per manufacturer)               DOE            AHAM             DOE            AHAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Costs.....................................            $700            $970  ..............            $970
Instrumentation (equipment for testing).........              15           1,432  ..............          \1\ 38
Test pots (vessels).............................             152             113  ..............         \2\ 209
Testing structures..............................               8             159  ..............          \3\ 43
Transducer (for ambient air temp.)..............               2             N/A  ..............               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................             876           2,673             700           1,260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: On average, 543 tests will be required to certify companies' full product lines.

[[Page 17960]]

 
\1\ This includes equipment maintenance (new/existing and calibrations for testing equipment).
\2\ Manufacturers will require ongoing replacement of test pots due to warping.
\3\ This includes increased/new annual costs from third party labs and/or UL and ISO (re) certification.

    One of the significant differences between DOE's estimate and 
AHAM's data is the total number of tests required and the number of 
models to be tested. It is difficult for manufacturers to determine at 
this stage how many basic models they would have. DOE's proposed energy 
conservation standards for cooktops, which AHAM strongly opposes, would 
be the first time manufacturers would need to certify compliance with 
standards and determine basic models. To do that may require testing of 
all models in order to determine likely model families, particularly 
because cooking products are complex. It will be difficult to determine 
which models can be grouped together in a basic model. That said, AHAM 
understands that not each individual model will need to be tested. 
Thus, it is likely that something between DOE's estimate and AHAM's 
data would be the actual average total number of models tested.
    Nevertheless, the difference in the number of tests and number of 
models to be tested is shown below in Table 4. DOE cost estimations 
(particularly for labor) are on a per-test basis. As described above, 
it is difficult to determine the total number of tests to be performed 
in the initial year. Comparing the DOE estimation of number of tests to 
AHAM member data shows a signficant difference or wide range. As a 
result, total costs are substantially higher when considering the 
average number of tests required according to AHAM member data.

                            Table 4--Average Number of Tests and Models To Be Tested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Estimated total cost
             Tests/models comparison                    DOE            AHAM      -------------------------------
                                                                                        DOE            AHAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average total number of tests required..........              66             543         $46,000      $1,100,000
Average total number of models tested...........              21             166          58,000       1,450,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another important difference is that DOE did not address upfront 
investments made in order for manufacturers to be able to perform the 
test procedure. But those costs should not be ignored. Manufacturers 
identified significant investments in specialized equipment to perform 
the test procedure successfully. For example, all respondants to AHAM's 
survey expressed frustration in obtaining the necessary test pots 
because the supplier is overseas. Acquiring even one set is difficult, 
as AHAM has discussed in previous comments, and the cost is about 
$9,500 excluding shipping and handling. Manufacturers indicated they 
would require between three and 24 sets to do certification testing.
    DOE concluded that it would cost about $500 to fabricate existing 
testing structures. But manufacturers identified significantly higher 
costs. AHAM's members consistently cited investments to redesign entire 
lab stations and expand facility space. These changes would be needed 
to control for ambient temperature at the tight levels DOE's test 
requires, cool test units, add new equipment, and account for much 
higher volumes of testing. AHAM also believes that third party testing 
(for certification only) could cost over $2,500 per model. Table 5 
details the comprehensive costs.

                      Table 5--Comprehensive Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Overall per
                                                           company costs
                Cooktop full product line                ---------------
                                                               AHAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor costs (annual total salaries).....................    \1\ $272,186
Instrumentation (equipment for testing).................     \2\ 376,635
Test pots (vessels).....................................      \3\ 84,200
Testing structures......................................     \4\ 368,100
Transducer (for ambient air temp.)......................             N/A
                                                         ---------------
  Total.................................................       1,101,121
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Overall costs may not align with per-test costs due to reporting
  measures and averaging.
\1\ Annual salary for full-time technicians across multiple labs (1 to
  5, up to 13 stations/chambers).
\2\ Specialized equipment (designed/purchased) to complete test
  procedure.
\3\ Companies require on average 3 sets of test pots to be replaced over
  multiple years.
\4\ Combination of costs from third party labs, certifications (UL/CSA/
  ISO), retrofitting existing facilities.

    The test and cost burden associated with the cooktop test procedure 
is not likely justified by any balancing benefit to consumers or the 
environment. In 2009, DOE determined that none of the trial standards 
levels that included efficiency standards instead of just prescriptive 
design standards had benefits that were outweighed by the economic 
burden that would be placed on consumers. DOE found that the potential 
economic savings realized by average consumers were outweighed by the 
risk that certain consumers would not realize the savings and the 
adverse loss of industry net present value, among other things. Thus, 
DOE prescribed standards consisting of prescriptive design standards, 
not energy performance standards. As we have commented previously, AHAM 
does not believe anything has changed since 2009 to justify amended 
standards.\12\ The available technology options have not changed. The 
energy savings opportunities remain small. Thus, the cooktop test 
procedure is not necessary and its burden is not balanced by any 
benefit to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See AHAM Comments on DOE's Energy Conservation Standards 
for Residential Cooking Products, Request for Information; Docket 
No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005; RIN 1904-AD15 (Apr. 14, 2014) (AHAM does 
not, however, believe that energy conservation standards different 
from those currently in place for conventional cooking products are 
technologically feasible or economically justified. There have been 
no significant changes since the existing standards for gas cooking 
tops and ``no standard'' standard for other conventional cooking 
products were promulgated that would result in justified standards. 
The available technology options have not changed, the energy 
savings opportunity remains small, and consumer cooking behavior 
still plays a significant role in the energy use of cooking 
products. In addition, AHAM believes that the introduction of new 
standards for cooking products could have a significant impact on 
the utility of cooking products . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the extraordinary regulatory burden the cooktop test 
procedure will place on manufacturers, the procedure is an ideal 
candidate for repeal consistent with Executive Order 13771,

[[Page 17961]]

Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, which requires 
agencies to repeal two regulations for every new one issued and offset 
the costs. Because, as AHAM has demonstrated above, DOE's cooktop test 
procedure may be considered arbitrary and capricious because it is not 
supported by sufficient data and likely has a high degree of total 
variation, the test procedure does not benefit consumers. It serves 
only to burden manufacturers who must comply with a test procedure that 
does not adequately represent products and, due to variation, will 
require manufacturers to make conservative claims.

CONCLUSION

    Because AHAM's testing shows that DOE did not sufficiently 
demonstrate that the cooktop test procedure is repeatable or 
reproducible for gas and electric cooktops, because DOE has yet to 
demonstrate--as EPCA requires it to do--that the final test procedure 
is representative for gas cooktops, and because the test procedure is 
unduly burdensome to conduct, we respectfully request that DOE withdraw 
the final cooktop test procedure while maintaining the repeal of the 
oven test procedure that was part of this same Final Rule. Even absent 
an energy conservation standard for cooktops that requires use of the 
test procedure, manufacturers are required to report energy use via a 
test procedure DOE has not demonstrated is representative of consumer 
use for all product types and AHAM has demonstrated is not 
reproducible. This means that reported energy values for some products 
could be inaccurate and, for all products, will not be directly 
comparable to each other across manufacturers. Thus, consumers could be 
misled when evaluating and comparing energy claims. Accordingly, we 
also seek an immediate stay of the effectiveness of the cooktop test 
procedure, including the requirement that manufacturers use the final 
test procedure to make energy related claims.

Respectfully submitted,

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers By:

Jennifer Cleary,

Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, 1111 19th St. NW, Suite 402, 
Washington, DC 20036, 202-872-5955 x314.

[FR Doc. 2018-08641 Filed 4-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P



                                                 17944

                                                 Proposed Rules                                                                                                 Federal Register
                                                                                                                                                                Vol. 83, No. 80

                                                                                                                                                                Wednesday, April 25, 2018



                                                 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER                    Telephone: (202) 586–6636. If possible,                claims that its analyses show that the
                                                 contains notices to the public of the proposed          please submit all items on a CD, in                    test procedure is not representative for
                                                 issuance of rules and regulations. The                  which case it is not necessary to include              gas cooking tops and, for gas and
                                                 purpose of these notices is to give interested          printed copies.                                        electric cooking tops, has such a high
                                                 persons an opportunity to participate in the               Docket: For access to the docket to                 level of variation it will not produce
                                                 rule making prior to the adoption of the final          read background documents, or                          accurate results for certification or
                                                 rules.
                                                                                                         comments received, go to the Federal                   enforcement purposes and will not
                                                                                                         eRulemaking Portal at http://                          assist consumers in making purchasing
                                                 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY                                    www.regulations.gov.                                   decisions based on energy efficiency.
                                                                                                         FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                          Although DOE welcomes comments
                                                 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430                                Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy,                 on any aspect of the petition for
                                                                                                         Office of the General Counsel, 1000                    reconsideration, DOE is particularly
                                                 Energy Conservation Program: Test                       Independence Avenue SW, Washington,                    interested in receiving comments and
                                                 Procedures for Cooking Products,                        DC 20585. E-mail: Celia.Sher@                          views of interested parties concerning
                                                 Notification of Petition for Rulemaking                 hq.doe.gov; (202) 287–6122.                            the following issues:
                                                                                                                                                                   (1) The repeatability and
                                                 AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and                 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
                                                                                                                                                                reproducibility of the test procedure for
                                                 Renewable Energy, Department of                         Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
                                                                                                                                                                conventional electric and gas cooking
                                                 Energy.                                                 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other
                                                                                                                                                                tops. DOE previously presented results
                                                 ACTION: Notification of petition for                    things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency shall give an
                                                                                                                                                                from round robin testing completed by
                                                 rulemaking; request for comment.                        interested person the right to petition
                                                                                                                                                                the Department and by IEC in the docket
                                                                                                         for the issuance, amendment, or repeal
                                                 SUMMARY:    On March 26, 2018, the                                                                             of the test procedure rulemaking. DOE
                                                                                                         of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE
                                                 Department of Energy (DOE) received a                                                                          seeks comments on that data as well as
                                                                                                         received a petition from AHAM, as
                                                 petition from the Association of Home                                                                          the new data AHAM has supplied
                                                                                                         described in this document and set forth
                                                 Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to                                                                              supporting its petition;
                                                                                                         verbatim below,1 requesting that DOE                      (2) The accuracy of determining the
                                                 withdraw, and immediately stay the                      reconsider its final rule on Test                      simmer setting and turndown
                                                 effectiveness of, the conventional                      Procedures for Cooking Products,                       temperature;
                                                 cooking top test procedure. Through                     Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0013,                          (3) The impact of heating element
                                                 this notification, DOE seeks comment                    RIN 1904–AC71, 81 FR 91418 (Dec. 16,                   cycling during the initial heat-up phase
                                                 on the petition, as well as any data or                 2016) (Final Rule). In promulgating this               of testing on the overall measured
                                                 information that could be used in DOE’s                 petition for public comment, DOE is                    energy consumption of electric cooking
                                                 determination whether to proceed with                   seeking views on whether it should                     tops, and the prevalence of such cycling
                                                 the petition.                                           grant the petition and undertake a                     in units available on the market.
                                                 DATES: Written comments and                             rulemaking to consider the proposal                       (4) The extent of any warpage which
                                                 information are requested on or before                  contained in the petition. By seeking                  may have been observed at the bottom
                                                 June 25, 2018.                                          comment on whether to grant this                       surface of test vessels during cooking
                                                 ADDRESSES: Interested persons are                       petition, DOE takes no position at this                top testing;
                                                 encouraged to submit comments,                          time regarding the merits of the                          (5) The impact of varying gas burner
                                                 identified by ‘‘Test Procedure Cooking                  suggested rulemaking or the assertions                 and grate systems on the
                                                 Products Petition,’’ by any of the                      in AHAM’s petition.                                    representativeness of the water-heating
                                                 following methods:                                         In its petition, AHAM requests that                 test method for gas cooking tops;
                                                    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://                  DOE undertake rulemaking to withdraw                      (6) The type of control system, heating
                                                 www.regulations.gov. Follow the                         the cooking top test procedure, while                  element, and other product redesigns
                                                 instructions for submitting comments.                   maintaining the repeal of the oven test                necessitated by changes in safety
                                                    Email: CookProducts2018TP0004@                       procedure that was part of the Final                   standards for electric cooking tops, and
                                                 ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number                   Rule. And, in the interim, AHAM seeks                  the impact of these new product designs
                                                 and/or RIN in the subject line of the                   an immediate stay of the effectiveness of              on the repeatability, reproducibility,
                                                 message.                                                the Final Rule, including the                          and representativeness of the electric
                                                    Mail: Appliance and Equipment                        requirement that manufacturers use the                 cooking product test procedure;
                                                 Standards Program, U.S. Department of                   final test procedure to make energy                       (7) Characteristics of a representative
                                                 Energy, Building Technologies Office,                   related claims. Should DOE continue to                 test sample for electric and gas cooking
                                                 Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence                       pursue a revised cooking top test                      tops for use in any additional round
                                                 Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–                        procedure, AHAM asserts that DOE                       robin testing to evaluate the
                                                 0121. If possible, please submit all items              should address repeatability and                       applicability of the test procedure to the
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 on a compact disc (CD), in which case                   reproducibility and demonstrate,                       conventional cooking top market as a
                                                 it is not necessary to include printed                  through round robin testing, that the test             whole;
                                                 copies.                                                 is repeatable and reproducible and, for                   (8) Information on how consumers
                                                    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance                     gas cooking tops, accurate. AHAM                       cook differently on gas cooktops versus
                                                 and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.                                                                          electric cooktops;
                                                                                                            1 Attachments and data submitted by AHAM with
                                                 Department of Energy, Building                          its petition for rulemaking are available in the
                                                                                                                                                                   (9) Information on how consumers
                                                 Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza                 docket at http://www.regulations.gov/                  use the simmer setting on a gas cooktop;
                                                 SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024.                    docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-TP-0004.                         and,


                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00001   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                              17945

                                                   (10) The test burden associated with                  www.regulations.gov provides after you                 and why such items are customarily
                                                 the test procedure for conventional                     have successfully uploaded your                        treated as confidential within the
                                                 electric and gas cooking tops, including                comment.                                               industry, (3) whether the information is
                                                 the ability of testing laboratories to meet                Submitting comments via hand                        generally known by or available from
                                                 the required ambient test conditions.                   delivery, or mail. Comments and                        other sources, (4) whether the
                                                                                                         documents via hand delivery or mail                    information has previously been made
                                                 Submission of Comments                                  will also be posted to http://                         available to others without obligation
                                                    DOE invites all interested parties to                www.regulations.gov. If you do not want                concerning its confidentiality, (5) an
                                                 submit in writing by June 25, 2018                      your personal contact information to be                explanation of the competitive injury to
                                                 comments and information regarding                      publicly viewable, do not include it in                the submitting person which would
                                                 this petition.                                          your comment or any accompanying                       result from public disclosure, (6) when
                                                    Submitting comments via http://                      documents. Instead, provide your                       such information might lost its
                                                 www.regulations.gov. The http://                        contact information on a cover letter.                 confidential character due to the
                                                 www.regulations.gov web page will                       Include your first and last names, email               passage of time, and (7) why disclosure
                                                 require you to provide your name and                    address, telephone number, and                         of the information would be contrary to
                                                 contact information prior to submitting                 optional mailing address. The cover                    the public interest.
                                                 comments. Your contact information                      letter will not be publicly viewable as                   It is DOE’s policy that all comments
                                                 will be viewable to DOE Building                        long as it does not include any                        may be included in the public docket,
                                                 Technologies staff only. Your contact                   comments.                                              without change and as received,
                                                 information will not be publicly                           Include contact information in your                 including any personal information
                                                 viewable except for your first and last                 cover letter each time you submit                      provided in the comments (except
                                                 names, organization name (if any), and                  comments, data, documents, and other                   information deemed to be exempt from
                                                 submitter representative name (if any).                 information to DOE. If you submit via                  public disclosure).
                                                 If your comment is not processed                        mail or hand delivery, please provide all                 DOE considers public participation to
                                                 properly because of technical                           items on a CD, if feasible. It is not                  be a very important part of its process
                                                 difficulties, DOE will use this                         necessary to submit printed copies. No                 for considering rulemaking petitions.
                                                 information to contact you. If DOE                      facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.                   DOE actively encourages the
                                                 cannot read your comment due to                            Comments, data, and other
                                                                                                                                                                participation and interaction of the
                                                 technical difficulties and cannot contact               information submitted electronically
                                                                                                                                                                public during the comment period.
                                                 you for clarification, DOE may not be                   should be provided in PDF (preferred),
                                                                                                                                                                Interactions with and between members
                                                 able to consider your comment.                          Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect,
                                                    However, your contact information                                                                           of the public provide a balanced
                                                                                                         or text (ASCII) file format. Provide
                                                 will be publicly viewable if you include                                                                       discussion of the issues and assist DOE
                                                                                                         documents that are not secured, written
                                                 it in the comment or in any documents                                                                          in determining how to proceed with a
                                                                                                         in English and free of any defects or
                                                 attached to your comment. Any                                                                                  petition. Anyone who wishes to be
                                                                                                         viruses. Documents should not include
                                                 information that you do not want to be                  any special characters or any form of                  added to DOE mailing list to receive
                                                 publicly viewable should not be                         encryption and, if possible, they should               future notifications and information
                                                 included in your comment, nor in any                    carry the electronic signature of the                  about this petition should contact
                                                 document attached to your comment.                      author.                                                Appliance and Equipment Standards
                                                 Persons viewing comments will see only                     Campaign form letters. Please submit                Program staff at (202) 586–6636 or via
                                                 first and last names, organization                      campaign form letters by the originating               email at CookProducts2018TP0004@
                                                 names, correspondence containing                        organization in batches of between 50 to               ee.doe.gov.
                                                 comments, and any documents                             500 form letters per PDF or as one form                Approval of the Office of the Secretary
                                                 submitted with the comments.                            letter with a list of supporters’ names
                                                    Do not submit to http://                                                                                      The Secretary of Energy has approved
                                                                                                         compiled into one or more PDFs. This
                                                 www.regulations.gov information for                                                                            publication of this notification of
                                                                                                         reduces comment processing and
                                                 which disclosure is restricted by statute,                                                                     petition for rulemaking.
                                                                                                         posting time.
                                                 such as trade secrets and commercial or                    Confidential Business Information.                    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 18,
                                                 financial information (hereinafter                      According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any                       2018.
                                                 referred to as Confidential Business                    person submitting information that he                  Daniel Simmons,
                                                 Information (CBI)). Comments                            or she believes to be confidential and                 Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy
                                                 submitted through http://                               exempt by law from public disclosure                   Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
                                                 www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed                   should submit via email, postal mail, or               Before the
                                                 as CBI. Comments received through the                   hand delivery two well-marked copies:
                                                 website will waive any CBI claims for                   One copy of the document marked                        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
                                                 the information submitted. For                          confidential including all the                         ENERGY
                                                 information on submitting CBI, see the                  information believed to be confidential,               Office of Energy Efficiency and
                                                 Confidential Business Information                       and one copy of the document marked                    Renewable Energy
                                                 section.                                                non-confidential with the information
                                                    DOE processes submissions made                       believed to be confidential deleted.                     In the Matter of: Energy Conservation
                                                 through http://www.regulations.gov                                                                             Program: Test Procedures for Cooking
                                                                                                         Submit these documents via email or on                 Products
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 before posting. Normally, comments                      a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
                                                 will be posted within a few days of                     determination about the confidential                   Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0013
                                                 being submitted. However, if large                      status of the information and treat it                 RIN 1904–AC71
                                                 volumes of comments are being                           according to its determination.
                                                 processed simultaneously, your                             Factors of interest to DOE when                     PETITION FOR
                                                 comment may not be viewable for up to                   evaluating requests to treat submitted                 RECONSIDERATION
                                                 several weeks. Please keep the comment                  information as confidential include (1) a               The Association of Home Appliance
                                                 tracking number that http://                            description of the items, (2) whether                  Manufacturers (AHAM) respectfully


                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00002   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                 17946                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                 petitions the Department of Energy                      enhance the accuracy and/or                            proposed rulemaking. 81 Fed. Reg.
                                                 (DOE) for reconsideration of its final                  representativeness of the test procedure.              57374 (Aug. 22, 2016) (August 2016
                                                 rule on Test Procedures for Cooking                     See AHAM Comments on DOE’s Notice                      SNOPR). In the August 2016 SNOPR,
                                                 Products, Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–                      of Proposed Rulemaking on Test                         DOE instead proposed to modify its
                                                 TP–0013 RIN 1904–AC71, 81 Fed. Reg.                     Procedures for Conventional Cooking                    procedure to incorporate by reference
                                                 91418 (Dec. 16, 2016) (Final Rule).                     Products With Induction Heating                        the relevant sections of EN 60350–
                                                    AHAM believes that, overall, the                     Technology (April 15, 2013). AHAM                      2:2013 ‘‘Household electric cooking
                                                 adoption of a water-boil test procedure                 commented that any test procedure DOE                  appliances Part 2: Hobs—Methods for
                                                 for cooking products is the appropriate                 adopts to measure induction heating                    measuring performance,’’ which uses a
                                                 procedure. And we thank DOE for                         technology must be both repeatable and                 water-heating test method to measure
                                                 making changes to its earlier proposed                  reproducible. Id. AHAM cautioned that                  energy consumption of electric
                                                 test procedure which would have used                    significant further study was necessary                cooktops. Despite the fact that the EN
                                                 a hybrid block after AHAM                               before DOE could adopt a test procedure                test procedure DOE cited applies only to
                                                 demonstrated the practical difficulties                 that accurately measures induction                     electric cooktops, DOE also proposed to
                                                 associated with that test. But DOE                      cooktop energy efficiency. Id. More                    extend that method to gas cooktops.
                                                 adopted a final cooktop test procedure                  specifically, AHAM opposed the                            AHAM generally agreed and
                                                 too hastily, especially in light of                     proposed test procedure because the                    continues to agree with DOE that the
                                                 comments AHAM submitted that                            proposal had a number of technical                     best test method for cooktops is a water
                                                 demonstrated the test’s lack of                         problems and ambiguities (e.g.,                        boil test and supported DOE’s
                                                 repeatability and reproducibility and                   ambiguous construction of hybrid test                  abandoning of the hybrid test block
                                                 questioned the use of a test procedure                  block); DOE’s data did not clearly                     method. See AHAM Comments on
                                                 meant for electric cooktops for gas                     identify one method (test block versus                 DOE’s SNOPR on Test Procedures for
                                                 cooktops. AHAM has evaluated the                        water heating) as being preferable to the              Cooking Products (Sept. 21, 2016).
                                                 Final Rule and conducted additional                     other for induction units; and the                     Nevertheless, AHAM commented
                                                 testing on gas cooktops. Our analyses                   proposed procedure would treat                         extensively on potential sources of
                                                 show that the test procedure is not                     induction technology differently than                  variation with DOE’s proposed
                                                 representative for gas cooktops and, for                other technologies, thereby penalizing                 procedure that needed to be resolved
                                                 gas and electric cooktops, has such a                   it. Id. AHAM also questioned whether                   before DOE finalized a cooktop test
                                                 high level of variation it will not                     the test block method in general was                   procedure. Id.
                                                 produce accurate results for                            representative of actual consumer use.                    Prior to DOE proposing a water-
                                                 certification or enforcement purposes                   Id.                                                    heating test, AHAM conducted a round
                                                 and will not assist consumers in making                    In response to stakeholder comments,                robin based on the Second Edition of
                                                 purchasing decisions based on energy                    DOE published a supplemental notice of                 IEC 60350–2 (2015), Household Electric
                                                 efficiency.                                             proposed rulemaking modifying its                      Cooking Appliances—Part 2: Hobs—
                                                    AHAM thus requests that DOE                          proposal. 79 Fed. Reg. 71894 (Dec. 3,                  Methods for Measuring Performance. Id.
                                                 withdraw the cooktop test procedure.                    2014) (December 2014 SNOPR). DOE’s                     The AHAM round robin consisted of
                                                 And, in the interim, we seek an                         modified proposal maintained a hybrid                  four units encompassing a different
                                                 immediate stay of the effectiveness,                    test block approach despite AHAM’s                     combination of controls and heating
                                                 including the requirement that                          comments. DOE proposed to add a layer                  elements. Id. AHAM assessed radiant,
                                                 manufacturers use the final test                        of thermal grease between the stainless                coil, and induction heating elements as
                                                 procedure to make energy related                        steel base and aluminum body of the                    well as infinite and step controls.
                                                 claims, of the cooktop test procedure.                  hybrid test block to facilitate heat                   Participating labs performed at least
                                                 Should DOE continue to pursue an                        transfer between the two pieces, and                   three full tests on the three electric
                                                 improved cooktop test procedure, DOE                    DOE proposed additional test                           technologies. The results demonstrated
                                                 should address repeatability and                        equipment for electric surface units                   that the procedure was not reproducible
                                                 reproducibility and demonstrate,                        with large diameters and gas cooking                   from lab to lab. AHAM data
                                                 through round robin testing, that the test              top burners with high input rates.                     demonstrated significant variation in
                                                 is repeatable and reproducible and, for                    AHAM’s comments on the December                     the proposed test procedure—
                                                 gas cooktops, representative.                           2014 SNOPR raised serious concerns                     coefficients of variation of 9.2 percent
                                                                                                         about the hybrid test blocks and the                   for electric radiant cooktops, 7.1 percent
                                                 FACTS                                                   thermal grease. See AHAM Comments                      for electric coil cooktops, and 8.4
                                                    DOE began revisions to the cooktop                   on DOE’s Supplemental Notice of                        percent for induction cooktops. Id.
                                                 test procedure with a notice of proposed                Proposed Rulemaking on Test                               Based on that testing, AHAM
                                                 rulemaking on January 30, 2013                          Procedures for Conventional Cooking                    commented that a significant amount of
                                                 (January 2013 NOPR) in which DOE                        Products (Feb. 2, 2015). AHAM also                     work remained to be done to finalize a
                                                 proposed amendments to Appendix I to                    raised questions about the testing of                  test and to demonstrate that the final
                                                 subpart B of 10 C.F.R. part 430                         flexible cooking zone areas, testing units             test is repeatable and reproducible. Id.
                                                 (Appendix I) that would allow for the                   with flexible concentric burner sizes,                 Specifically, AHAM listed a number of
                                                 measuring of active mode energy                         and the use of the smallest dimension                  items that needed to be resolved,
                                                 consumption of induction cooking                        of a noncircular electric surface unit to              including several potential sources of
                                                 products. Specifically, DOE proposed to                 determine block size. Id.                              test procedure variation, before DOE
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 require the use of test equipment—                         Based on comments it received in                    could finalize the test procedure, and
                                                 hybrid test blocks comprised of an                      response to the December 2014 SNOPR                    requested that DOE issue a notice of
                                                 aluminum body and a stainless steel                     and a series of manufacturer interviews                data availability or supplemental notice
                                                 base—compatible with induction                          DOE conducted in February and March                    of proposed rulemaking to provide
                                                 technology.                                             2015, DOE subsequently withdrew its                    stakeholders with an opportunity to
                                                    AHAM objected to DOE’s proposed                      proposal for testing conventional                      comment:
                                                 amendments to the test procedure                        cooktops with a hybrid test block in yet                  • Lack of a tolerance on staying ‘‘as
                                                 because the amendments did not                          another supplemental notice of                         close as possible’’ to 90° C;


                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00003   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                          17947

                                                    • Variability in energy consumption                  changes DOE believed would improve                        DOE did not support the Final Rule
                                                 during the simmering phase;                             repeatability and reproducibility. In                  with sufficient data to demonstrate that
                                                    • Variability in determining the turn                support of the final test procedure, DOE               it is accurate, repeatable, and
                                                 down temperature;                                       conducted additional testing. DOE                      reproducible. More specifically, as
                                                    • Variability in determining the turn                conducted testing of five electric                     discussed more fully below:
                                                 down setting;                                           cooktops incorporating different heating                  b DOE has not demonstrated that the
                                                    • Unit cycling;                                      technologies and control types. For each               test procedure is representative for gas
                                                    • Specifying a temperature sensor for                unit, DOE conducted testing on surface                 products. DOE did not demonstrate that
                                                 measuring the water temperature;                        units capturing a range of heating                     its deviation from the international
                                                    • A proposal to use a moving average                 element sizes. DOE conducted two to                    approach—testing gas cooktops using a
                                                 for calculating the final result;                       three tests per surface unit. For each                 different procedure than is used for
                                                    • Limited suppliers of test pots;                                                                           testing electric cooktops—was
                                                    • No tool or tolerance specified for                 individual test, DOE performed the full
                                                                                                         surface unit test method, including the                warranted or would produce accurate,
                                                 cooktop diameter measurement;
                                                                                                         preliminary test required to determine                 representative results. And DOE tested
                                                    • Test pots do not accommodate all
                                                                                                         the turndown temperature and                           only a small sample that cannot be
                                                 grate designs;
                                                    • Difficulty with placement of pots on               simmering setting for a given surface                  representative of the many different
                                                 gas cooktops;                                           unit. DOE varied test operators for                    types of gas models on the market and
                                                    • Impact of gas burner system,                       surface unit tests, but did not conduct                the result is that the test may not
                                                 geometry, spacing, and grates on                        testing in different laboratories. In                  adequately address the different systems
                                                 repeatability and reproducibility;                      addition, DOE included test results from               available to consumers. Thus, DOE has
                                                    • Impact of using the electric test pots             previous tests of these units conducted                not demonstrated that the test procedure
                                                 on gas cooktops; and                                    in support of the August 2016 SNOPR.                   is representative or accurate for gas
                                                    • Overshoot temperature of the water                 DOE relied on that minimal data to                     products.
                                                 can reach beyond 90° C for some gas                     determine that the final test procedure,                  b DOE’s testing of electric and gas
                                                 cooktops. Id.                                           finalized only two months after DOE                    cooktops was insufficient to evaluate
                                                 AHAM also requested that DOE indicate                   received voluminous comments from                      repeatability and reproducibility and,
                                                 how the changes to the test procedure                   AHAM concerning a lack of                              thus, DOE’s conclusions are based on
                                                 would impact the proposed standards                     repeatability and reproducibility as                   results with a low confidence level
                                                 and allow stakeholders additional time                  demonstrated through 27 tests on three                 which is highlighted by AHAM’s
                                                 to comment on those proposed                            units at three different laboratories.                 conflicting results. Accordingly, DOE
                                                 standards based on the test procedure                                                                          did not produce sufficient evidence to
                                                                                                         ARGUMENT                                               demonstrate that its test procedure is
                                                 changes. Id.
                                                    In response to AHAM’s comments,                         The Energy Policy and Conservation                  supported by data.
                                                 DOE sent AHAM a request for data on                     Act of 1975, as amended (EPCA)                            b Although DOE tried to address
                                                 September 27, 2016. That data request                   requires that test procedures be                       variation by requiring recording of the
                                                 was voluminous and overlapped with                      reasonably designed to produce test                    simmering setting selection, AHAM’s
                                                 the comment period on the proposed                      results which measure energy                           testing demonstrates that that
                                                 standards for cooking products—which                    efficiency, energy use, or estimated                   requirement does not in fact reduce
                                                 ended on November 2, 2016—and DOE                       annual operating cost of a covered                     variation.
                                                 proposed in parallel with the August                                                                              b Although DOE attempted to clarify
                                                                                                         product during a representative average
                                                 2016 SNOPR. See Energy Conservation                                                                            when the simmering period starts,
                                                                                                         use cycle and shall not be unduly
                                                 Program: Energy Conservation                                                                                   DOE’s clarification does not adequately
                                                                                                         burdensome to conduct. 42 U.S.C.
                                                 Standards for Residential Conventional                                                                         reduce variation.
                                                                                                         § 6293(b)(3). This requirement is
                                                 Cooking Products, Supplemental Notice                                                                             b DOE improperly dismissed unit
                                                                                                         meaningless if the test procedure is not
                                                 of Proposed Rulemaking; 81 Fed Reg.                                                                            cycling’s contribution to variation.
                                                                                                         repeatable and reproducible—only a                        b DOE did not account for the fact
                                                 60784 (Sept. 2, 2016). Nevertheless,                    repeatable and reproducible test
                                                 AHAM worked to answer DOE’s                                                                                    that electric coil cooktops are currently
                                                                                                         procedure can produce accurate results                 undergoing significant redesign to
                                                 questions and, on November 23, 2016,                    that DOE can rely on for certification
                                                 filed a detailed response, including a                                                                         comply with voluntary safety standards.
                                                                                                         and verification purposes and that                     It is possible that the new products will
                                                 significant amount of raw data DOE                      consumers can rely on to compare
                                                 requested which AHAM submitted to                                                                              not respond the same way to the test.
                                                                                                         energy use or efficiency across products.                 b DOE did not investigate the impact
                                                 Navigant Consulting under a
                                                                                                            AHAM appreciates that DOE made                      of pan warpage on test results. Initial
                                                 confidentiality agreement. See AHAM
                                                                                                         changes from the August 2016 SNOPR                     data from a study done for AHAM
                                                 Comments on DOE’s SNOPR on Test
                                                                                                         to the Final Rule in an attempt to                     shows pan warpage will contribute to
                                                 Procedures for Cooking Products (dated
                                                                                                         address AHAM’s September 21, 2016                      variation.
                                                 Nov. 22, 2016).1 AHAM informed DOE
                                                                                                         comments. AHAM also appreciates that                      b Based on data from a round robin
                                                 in advance that it would be submitting
                                                                                                         DOE conducted additional testing to                    AHAM conducted with gas cooktops,
                                                 the response. Despite having asked for
                                                                                                         further assess the proposed and final                  the test procedure is not repeatable or
                                                 that data and having been informed
                                                                                                         test procedure. But DOE did not take the               reproducible for gas cooktops. Within
                                                 AHAM would be providing it, DOE
                                                                                                         time or do the work necessary to finalize              unit and between unit variation also
                                                 issued a final test procedure on that
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                         a test procedure that fully or                         contributes to the total variation and
                                                 same day, November 23, 2016, which it
                                                                                                         satisfactorily addresses the significant               DOE has not accounted for it.
                                                 published on December 16, 2016.
                                                                                                         issues AHAM raised in its comments or                     In addition, the test procedure is
                                                    The Final Rule adopted DOE’s
                                                                                                         the data AHAM provided in response to                  unduly burdensome to conduct. Based
                                                 proposed test procedure with some
                                                                                                         DOE’s request. This is further                         on AHAM’s experience to date, it takes
                                                   1 We hereby incorporate into this petition by         demonstrated based on additional                       on average 20 hours to conduct a single
                                                 reference all data AHAM submitted to DOE and            testing and analysis AHAM conducted                    test on a four burner cooktop and
                                                 Navigant as part of the test procedure rulemaking.      after the Final Rule was published.                    requires the testing of every single


                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00004   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                 17948                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                 burner or element individually. And,                    I. DOE Has Not Demonstrated That The                   States, especially in light of the fact that
                                                 because the test requires the technician                Test Procedure Is Representative for                   Europe uses a different approach.
                                                 to determine the turn-down temperature                  Gas Cooktops.                                             In fact, AHAM believes that the
                                                 before every test and the ambient                                                                              evidence supports the opposite
                                                                                                            In the August 2016 SNOPR, DOE                       conclusion—i.e., that the cooktop test
                                                 conditions are quite tight, several runs
                                                                                                         proposed to extend the electric test                   procedure is not representative for gas
                                                 are often required before a valid run can
                                                                                                         procedure in EN 60350–2:2013                           cooktops. The EN and ASTM standards
                                                 be achieved. Our testing, which is                      ‘‘Household electric cooking appliances
                                                 described more fully below, found that                                                                         use a different test procedure for gas
                                                                                                         Part 2: Hobs—Methods for measuring                     cooktops and do so for good reason.
                                                 some tests took upward of five days for                 performance’’ to gas cooktops. AHAM
                                                 a single cooktop. Moreover, the test cost                                                                      Unlike electric cooktops, gas cooktops
                                                                                                         commented in its September 21, 2016                    utilize a system approach—every
                                                 is much higher than DOE concluded in                    comments that there is no consumer
                                                 its Final Rule on both an up-front and                                                                         component and design choice is
                                                                                                         data on the consumer representativeness                connected to other components and
                                                 ongoing basis.                                          of that method for gas cooktops. AHAM                  design choices and they work together.
                                                    Because the final test procedure may                 noted that DOE’s proposal, and now                     The cooking heat out to the pot depends
                                                 not be representative for gas products                  Final Rule, is not harmonized with the                 on the design of the burner, flow of gas,
                                                 and is not repeatable or reproducible for               European approach, which uses a                        mass of the grate, and height of the grate
                                                 either gas or electric cooktops, it does                different test procedure and different                 from the burner.
                                                 not accurately measure cooktop energy                   test pots to test gas cooktops. DOE’s                     Gas testing is a science, and DOE did
                                                 efficiency and will not allow consumers                 methodology is also different than                     not do sufficient study to determine
                                                 to compare products on that basis. Thus,                ASTM F152, ‘‘Standard Test Methods                     whether the electric test procedure it
                                                 because the test is also unduly                         for Performance of Range Tops,’’ which                 adopted would measure representative
                                                 burdensome to conduct, the cooktop test                 DOE reviewed during the test procedure                 results for gas cooktops:
                                                                                                         rulemaking and is used by the                             1. First, the purpose behind EN
                                                 procedure as a whole does not meet
                                                                                                         commercial range industry. DOE                         60350–2:2013 was to establish a test to
                                                 EPCA’s statutory requirement that test
                                                                                                         dismissed ASTM F1521 because of the                    determine minimum energy for electric
                                                 procedures be reasonably designed to                    BTU range for commercial range tops,
                                                 produce representative results and are                                                                         cooktops. The reason that the working
                                                                                                         and AHAM is not arguing that it is the                 group that developed the test decided to
                                                 not unduly burdensome to conduct.                       appropriate procedure for residential
                                                 Moreover, because DOE did not support                                                                          assess simmer for electric cooktops was
                                                                                                         products. But the science behind the                   to show the distinction in energy use
                                                 the conclusions in the Final Rule with                  test setup in ASTM is similar to the EN
                                                 sufficient data, DOE’s Final Rule could                                                                        between the different electric
                                                                                                         gas test procedure which demonstrates                  technologies, i.e. induction, radiant. For
                                                 be determined to be arbitrary and                       that the basic methodology for testing                 electric cooktops, technology has an
                                                 capricious. Accordingly, AHAM                           gas products is well established.                      impact on how much energy is used to
                                                 respectfully requests that DOE withdraw                    Accordingly, no manufacturer or third               get to boil and also how much energy
                                                 the Final Rule amending the cooktop                     party test laboratory—in the U.S.,                     it uses to keep a simmer temperature.
                                                 test procedure. And, in the interim, we                 Europe, or elsewhere in the world—had                  Thus, some technologies may appear to
                                                 seek an immediate stay of the                           experience with DOE’s proposed test                    be more or less efficient if just a time to
                                                 effectiveness, including the requirement                procedure for gas cooktops other than                  boil was assessed. For electric, the
                                                 that manufacturers use the final test                   DOE’s minimal testing in one laboratory                simmer portion of the test is needed to
                                                 procedure to make energy related                        prior to the publishing of the Final Rule.             accurately show the cooktop’s energy
                                                 claims, of the Final Rule. To be clear,                 Thus, neither DOE nor manufacturers                    use and to allow comparison across the
                                                 AHAM is not seeking reconsideration                     have knowledge of whether this test will               product types. Figure 1 below shows
                                                 regarding DOE’s decision to repeal the                  be representative for gas products.                    how the test distinguishes between
                                                 oven test procedure.                                    Accordingly, DOE does not have the                     electric technologies.2
                                                                                                         necessary data to justify the use of this
                                                                                                         method on gas cooktops in the United                    2 CECED,   2012.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00005   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                          17949




                                                    2. In an attempt to keep one test                    consumers are comparing gas and                           b. Ultra rapid or rapid burners are
                                                 method, DOE extended this electric                      electric products.                                     designed to reduce time to boil, or for
                                                 method to gas cooktops. AHAM                               3. The best comparison for comparing                frying. Often flame stability suffers at
                                                 appreciates the attempt to reduce the                   gas cooktops to other gas cooktops                     low rates, making simmering results
                                                 number of test methods. But, in this                    would be based on a simple bring to boil               poor.
                                                 case, there is no reason to use one type                test, which is what Europe and the                        c. Other high input burners are
                                                 of test. There are not different types of               ASTM methods both use. DOE is the                      designed for rapid cooking (i.e. Wok)
                                                 gas technologies and so a simmer period                 first to reinvent the wheel and require                and are not designed for simmering.
                                                                                                         gas and electric cooktops to be tested in                 Each of these burner types have been
                                                 is not needed to differentiate between
                                                                                                         the same way.                                          optimized in design to serve a particular
                                                 technologies as it is in electric. The
                                                                                                            4. On a gas unit, there is very little              cooking function for consumers. Thus, it
                                                 significant added burden of including
                                                                                                         overshoot which means there is no                      may not make sense to apply a water
                                                 the simmer setting (and the variation it
                                                                                                         retained heat. Electric cooktops, on the               boil test to all of them. For example, a
                                                 introduces) is not likely balanced by a                                                                        consumer would not likely boil water
                                                                                                         other hand, often have a significant
                                                 benefit in terms of energy savings.                                                                            on the small/semi-rapid burner that is
                                                                                                         amount of retained heat. A gas cooktop’s
                                                    In addition, most consumers likely                   ability to maintain simmer in the                      meant to be used for melting chocolate
                                                 replace their cooktops with the same                    absence of retained heat is largely a                  or cooking fine sauces—the time to boil
                                                 fuel that is already in their home. Based               function of grate to burner relationships,             on such a burner would be extremely
                                                 on a 2010 study conducted for AHAM,                     burner design, valve design, and pan                   long, perhaps 40 minutes. In addition to
                                                 the vast majority of consumers surveyed                 position. This relationship is not                     not being representative, the test will
                                                 replaced their cooktops and ranges with                 accounted for in the electric cooktop                  drive significant variation in the
                                                 a similar unit. According to the study,                 test because it does not need to be. But               assessment because DOE did not
                                                 nearly nine in ten households that                      it does need to be addressed in a test                 address this in the test procedure. DOE
                                                 bought a freestanding single oven range                 applicable to gas cooktops.                            did, however, address this issue for
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 did a direct replacement. Homeowners                       5. More so than electric elements, gas              electric cooktops—the test procedure
                                                 were even more likely to do a direct                    burners are designed for a specific                    removes certain burners from
                                                 replacement of this type of appliance, at               cooking purpose. For example:                          assessment.
                                                 94 percent.3 So, it is unlikely that                       a. Small or semi-rapid burners are                     6. Additionally, because DOE
                                                                                                         typically used for simmering. This                     extended a test meant for electric
                                                  3 Bellomy Research for AHAM, 2010 Major                simmering performance is developed for                 cooktops to gas cooktops, the test does
                                                 Appliance Consumer Research Survey, Cooking             melting chocolate and fine sauces, not                 not require preheating of the gas burner.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            EP25AP18.006</GPH>




                                                 Appliances (2010).                                      keeping water simmering.                               A gas system will change rates and how


                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00006   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                 17950                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                 it performs as it warms. The European                   conditions on the test results for gas and             U.S. consumer use of gas cooktops and
                                                 test for gas products has a 10 minute                   electric cooking products in order to                  will deliver accurate results, DOE
                                                 preheat because the working group that                  ensure consistent test results across                  should withdraw the test procedure.
                                                 developed that test found that                          various regions, climates, and altitudes.              Keeping it in place will very likely
                                                 preheating improved the                                 In addition, the SoCal IOUs commented                  result in inaccurate information to
                                                 representativeness of the test results as               that validating the ambient condition                  consumers and is contrary to EPCA’s
                                                 well as repeatability and                               requirements would address the impact                  and the Administrative Procedure Act’s
                                                 reproducibility. The ASTM test has a 30                 of the proposed correction to the gas                  requirements.
                                                 minute stabilization period at 50                       heating value to standard temperature
                                                 percent heat for the same reason. Thus,                                                                        II. DOE Has Not Demonstrated That
                                                                                                         and pressure conditions. DOE
                                                 DOE’s failure to include preheating in                                                                         The Test Procedure Is Repeatable or
                                                                                                         responded only that it incorporated the
                                                 the gas test ignores the wisdom                                                                                Reproducible For Gas Cooktops.
                                                                                                         ambient air pressure and temperature
                                                 generated by other groups’ extensive                    conditions specified in EN 60350–                      A. Lab to Lab Variation
                                                 testing and experience and likely                       2:2013 and thus believed that the results                Because of the short comment period
                                                 contributes to the high degree of                       ‘‘should not’’ be impacted by tests being              on the August 2016 SNOPR, AHAM was
                                                 variation we describe below.                            conducted in different locations.4 But
                                                    7. The pots specified by the European                                                                       not able to conduct a round robin to
                                                                                                         DOE did not do any additional testing                  assess the repeatability and
                                                 electric test are different than the pots               to determine if that is in fact the case
                                                 used in the European gas cooktop test.                                                                         reproducibility of the test procedure for
                                                                                                         and, as discussed below in Section II,                 gas products. And DOE had no data
                                                 The gas pots are Aluminum test pans                     AHAM’s testing demonstrates
                                                 having a matt base and polished walls—                                                                         regarding repeatability or
                                                                                                         reproducibility issues which could be                  reproducibility upon which to rely. DOE
                                                 that material is of the highest level of                attributed, in part, to these differences.
                                                 conduction. The electric test pans are a                                                                       instead relied on a European Committee
                                                                                                         Moreover, efficiency for a gas cooktop                 of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers
                                                 very thick stainless steel plate (6 mm)                 depends heavily on the external
                                                 with thin stainless walls (1 mm) that are                                                                      (CECED) round robin conducted five
                                                                                                         environment, much more so than for                     years ago on electric cooktops. But, that
                                                 joined by a heat resistant glue. The pan                electric products. Simmering is, thus,
                                                 construction is significantly different                                                                        round robin is irrelevant. As discussed
                                                                                                         not the right parameter to measure the                 above, Europe does not extend its
                                                 which will have an impact on heat                       ability to keep the control in this
                                                 transfer from the burner to the pan. The                                                                       electric cooktop test procedure to gas
                                                                                                         technology. That is yet another reason                 cooktops for good reason. DOE would be
                                                 pot spacing of the large flat corner pans               why the European gas test does not
                                                 designed for electric cooktops will                                                                            the first to do that. Thus, there is no
                                                                                                         include the simmer setting—it will be                  historical data for that test procedure.
                                                 perform differently with the gas burners                variable and inaccurate.
                                                 compared to the EN specified                                                                                   Therefore, AHAM commented that DOE
                                                                                                            In addition, the U.S. market consists               should evaluate its proposed procedure
                                                 Aluminum pots and will not drive                        of a wide array of grate and burner
                                                 representative results. A gas flame heats                                                                      even more carefully and in more detail
                                                                                                         offerings to consumers and DOE did not                 than the electric cooktop test procedure.
                                                 a pot differently and this should be                    sufficiently assess those offerings in
                                                 accounted for in the test.                                                                                     Repeatability and reproducibility cannot
                                                                                                         developing the test procedure. DOE                     be established based only on DOE’s
                                                    DOE did not assess a sufficient variety
                                                                                                         itself acknowledged 283 gas                            limited within lab testing and complete
                                                 of gas cooktop designs to conclude that
                                                                                                         configurations.5 Yet DOE tested only                   lack of lab to lab testing.
                                                 the test procedure it adopted is
                                                                                                         five units. The varying designs available                In order to address AHAM’s concerns,
                                                 representative for gas products,
                                                 especially in light of Europe’s use of a                to consumers, most of which DOE did                    DOE conducted investigative testing on
                                                 different procedure for residential gas                 not assess, have offerings of a sealed/                gas cooktops in support of the Final
                                                 products. As highlighted above, the                     unsealed burner, stacked burner,                       Rule. DOE conducted testing on five gas
                                                 residual heat loss of a gas burner on                   different burner shapes, a range of grate              cooking tops that covered a range of
                                                 simmer is significantly different than                  weight and shape, and different grate                  burner input rates, installation widths
                                                 simmer on electric unit where the                       materials. DOE has not shown that the                  (two 30 inch and three 36 inch), burner
                                                 electric unit retains heat from the                     test procedure is repeatable and                       quantities (two four burner, three six
                                                 cooktop. DOE also has specified                         reproducible for the different designs on              burner), and grate weights. To evaluate
                                                 stainless steel pans whereas the                        the marketplace. For DOE to conclude                   variation in the test, DOE conducted
                                                 European procedure for gas cooktops                     these issues do not exist simply because               two to three tests on each burner. For
                                                 uses Aluminum, which has a higher                       it did not observe them in its small test              each individual test, DOE performed the
                                                 level of conduction. The pan                            sample is illogical. DOE made                          full test method, including the
                                                 construction is also different which will               assumptions that are not supported by                  preliminary test required to determine
                                                 have an impact on heat transfer from the                sufficient data and are in direct conflict             the turndown temperature and
                                                 burner to the pan.                                      with the technical support for the                     simmering setting for a given burner.
                                                    AHAM has not been the only                           European gas test and ASTM standard                    DOE also included test results from
                                                 commenter to question the                               which drove those procedures to have a                 previous testing conducted in support of
                                                 representativeness of extending the                     pre-heat requirement, to exclude a                     the August 2016 SNOPR. The coefficient
                                                 European electric test procedure to gas                 simmer assessment, and to use                          of variation DOE observed for the
                                                 cooktops. During the test procedure                     specifically constructed Aluminum                      measured AEC for its test sample was,
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 rulemaking, Southern California Gas                     pans. Until and unless DOE can                         on average 1.0 percent. DOE also noted
                                                 Company, San Diego Gas and Electric,                    demonstrate that data show the cooktop                 that the average per-cycle energy
                                                 and Southern California Edison                          test procedure is representative of actual             consumption coefficient of variation for
                                                 (collectively, the Southern California                                                                         each burner was 1.7 percent.
                                                                                                           4 See Final Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 91418, 91434 (Dec.
                                                 investor-owned utilities (SoCal IOUs))                                                                           DOE based its Final Rule conclusions
                                                                                                         16, 2016).
                                                 commented that DOE should conduct a                       5 Id. At 91438 (‘‘DOE surveyed 335 electric          regarding total variation of the entire
                                                 sensitivity analysis of the impact of                   cooking tops and 283 gas cooking tops available on     plethora of cooktops in the marketplace
                                                 ambient temperature and pressure                        the market in the United States.’’).                   on only this meager five unit sample


                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00007   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                                          Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                                17951

                                                 and a simulated round robin. DOE’s                        Moreover, this assessment looks at                        Moreover, because DOE tested such a
                                                 testing did not truly test reproducibility                within lab variation and not total                     small sample the confidence level of its
                                                 from lab to lab because DOE simply                        variation. As discussed below regarding                results is low (the same is true for
                                                 used different technicians for some of                    DOE’s electric cooktop testing, DOE’s                  electric cooktops). For a sample size of
                                                 its tests. DOE did not conduct testing on                 testing is insufficient to support a                   five, trying to represent the millions of
                                                 the same units in different labs. It makes                conclusion that the test procedure for                 units that will be produced and the tens
                                                 sense that under those conditions—                        gas cooktops is repeatable and                         of different labs that will be doing
                                                 using the same laboratory equipment                       reproducible and, thus, is insufficient to             testing this inherently has a large
                                                 and test technicians trained in the same                  support the final test procedure.                      margin of error as shown in Figure 2.6
                                                 laboratory—variation would be lower.




                                                    Based on this sample size, results can                 did not engage stakeholders—either                     provided Navigant with raw data under
                                                 vary plus or minus 26 percent. We fully                   manufacturer labs or third party labs—                 a confidentiality agreement.
                                                 understand that a larger sample size is                   in its assessment of the Final Rule.                      We note that some of the tests could
                                                 a function of cost and that there are                     Thus, based on DOE’s testing, neither                  not meet the specified ambient
                                                 limitations on the amount of further                      DOE nor stakeholders have any idea                     temperature requirements. Specifically,
                                                 testing that can be done. Nevertheless,                   what the actual test procedure total                   some of the laboratories were not able
                                                 it is important not to lose sight of                      variation is.                                          to hold the ambient temperature as
                                                 the fact that DOE’s sample size                              In order to assess whether the final                required during the duration of the test.
                                                 results in as much as 50 percent in                       test procedure for gas cooktops is                     Manufacturers ran the tests in the
                                                 variation on the expected results.                        repeatable and reproducible, after DOE                 tightest environments that are currently
                                                 Thus, it is no surprise that AHAM’s                       issued the final test procedure rule,                  available at +/¥5 °F in their
                                                 testing has shown significant variation                   AHAM conducted a round robin on gas                    laboratories. The Final Rule requires
                                                 that DOE’s did not. This large                            cooktops. It is likely that even more                  new equipment to maintain +/¥2 °F,
                                                 confidence interval, which the                            testing would be helpful in better                     which is difficult or, in some cases,
                                                 difference between DOE’s and AHAM’s                       understanding both the test procedure                  impossible to do in existing laboratories.
                                                 test results bear out, further supports                   and its variation, but these results are               Section IV below further discusses this
                                                 AHAM’s request that DOE withdraw the                      enough to demonstrate that there is                    point. The labs that ran the tests have
                                                 cooktop test procedure. A test procedure                  sufficient doubt regarding the gas                     been approved by the safety certification
                                                 that could be required to demonstrate                     cooktop test procedure’s accuracy such                 bodies and Canadian Energy
                                                 compliance with possible energy                           that DOE should withdraw it.                           Verification organization. We removed
                                                 conservation standards should not be                         AHAM’s gas cooktop round robin                      the most errant runs and included the
                                                 finalized with such a high confidence                     included four units (two cooktops and                  test data to show the variation that was
                                                 interval, particularly when conflicting                   two ranges), with a range of product                   noticeable during our tests as it is
                                                 data has been provided to highlight this                  types.7 Four labs tested the burners with              representative of the current lab
                                                 high confidence interval. At a                            the highest and lowest burner input                    capability. Importantly, improving the
                                                 minimum, this demonstrates that DOE’s                     rates (i.e., one high capacity and one                 ability to maintain ambient temperature
                                                 data alone and when added together                        low capacity burner was tested for each                will involve significant upgrades to
                                                 with AHAM’s data raises significant                       unit).8 Each burner was tested three                   laboratories, which will add cost and
                                                 questions about whether the test is                       times each using the procedure                         burden for manufacturers.
                                                 repeatable and reproducible. Thus,                        specified in the DOE Final Rule. Labs                     As mentioned above, AHAM’s test
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 DOE’s Final Rule is not supported by                      recorded the simmering setting selection               plan called for running the test
                                                 adequate data and could be considered                     for the energy test cycle and the first                differently than the DOE test by having
                                                 arbitrary and capricious.                                 laboratory marked the turn down                        the first laboratory mark the turn down
                                                    Moreover, as with electric cooktops                    temperature. AHAM’s test plan is                       temperature it used. AHAM
                                                 and discussed more fully below, DOE                       attached in Exhibit B and AHAM                         understands that this is not fully
                                                   6 See,   e.g., www.surveysystem.com.                       7 A summary of the test unit characteristics is      8 Unit   A was tested by five labs.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 EP25AP18.007</GPH>




                                                                                                           attached at Exhibit B and data in Exhibit C.



                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014     18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00008   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                 17952                           Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                 consistent with DOE’s test procedure.                                                The DOE test procedure tried to                                                           Good lab practice is that within lab
                                                 But, because the test procedure is                                                address some of the variation that is not                                                 variation should clearly be less than two
                                                 unduly burdensome to conduct, as                                                  controllable in the methodology of its                                                    percent. For current data acceptance
                                                 discussed below, this method was                                                  burdensome test procedure—e.g.,                                                           programs within the appliance industry,
                                                 necessary to reduce the test burden—                                              heating values, different ambient                                                         it is common practice that data between
                                                 reducing the number of possible settings                                          temperatures, equipment, and                                                              labs should be no more than three
                                                 for the cooktop was seen as a                                                     technicians. AHAM’s methodology was                                                       percent variation. DOE’s data within its
                                                 worthwhile experiment. Importantly, it                                            an effort to determine if the extra                                                       own lab fell within the target zone for
                                                 was not always possible for laboratories                                          burden aimed at reducing that variation                                                   variation for four of the five units DOE
                                                 to use the marked temperature and so,                                             reduced it enough to justify the extra                                                    tested. DOE did not test at different labs,
                                                 in several instances, laboratories                                                time, labor, and cost. Our conclusion: it                                                 so the Final Rule is not based on any
                                                 followed DOE’s test procedure to the                                              is not. Although neither method                                                           accurate lab-to-lab data showing an
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             acceptable range of lab-to-lab variation.
                                                 letter. In the end, only half of the labs                                         showed results with an acceptable
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                AHAM’s round robin shows similar
                                                 were able to follow AHAM’s test plan.                                             level of variation, the runs that used
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             results to DOE’s in terms of within lab
                                                 The other half ran the test according to                                          the truncated test resulted in less                                                       variation. Significantly, however, as
                                                 the DOE test procedure as written. Our                                            variation. Regardless, the results cast                                                   shown in Table 1, lab-to-lab variation
                                                 data below differentiates these methods                                           significant doubt on DOE’s small                                                          considerably exceeds the three percent
                                                 by referring to the tests that used the                                           amount of supporting data for the Final                                                   maximum lab-to-lab variation target
                                                 marked turndown temperature as the                                                Rule and support AHAM’s request that                                                      regardless of whether the full DOE test
                                                 ‘‘truncated test’’ or ‘‘preset.’’                                                 DOE withdraw it.                                                                          was run or the truncated test was run.
                                                                                                                 TABLE 1—AHAM GAS ROUND ROBIN SUMMARY RESULTS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Coefficient of     Coefficient of
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Maximum                    Average
                                                                                                                                                                       Minimum input                                                             variation      variation across
                                                                                                                                               Number of                                                input                 annual energy
                                                                   Cooking unit                                         Width                                               rate                                                                  —1 lab          multiple labs
                                                                                                                                                burners                                                  rate                  consumption
                                                                                                                                                                          (Btu/hr)                                                            (repeatability)   (reproducibility)
                                                                                                                                                                                                       (Btu/hr)                  (kBtu/yr)         (%)                 (%)

                                                 AHAM   A—set ............................................                           36                           5                   8,000                    18,000                 936.3              0.89               3.60
                                                 AHAM   A—Preset ......................................          ........................   ........................   ........................   ........................            918.7              0.68               2.30
                                                 AHAM   B ....................................................                       30                           4                   5,000                    15,000               1,034.1              9.20              17.10
                                                 AHAM   B—Preset ......................................          ........................   ........................   ........................   ........................            870.1              1.70              13.50
                                                 AHAM   C ....................................................                       30                           4                   5,000                    15,000                 843.1              2.70              12.50
                                                 AHAM   C—Preset ......................................          ........................   ........................   ........................   ........................            827.9              1.80               7.00
                                                 AHAM   D ....................................................                       30                           5                   5,500                    18,000               1,077.2              0.78              12.00
                                                 AHAM   D—Preset ......................................          ........................   ........................   ........................   ........................            1,123              1.59              12.00



                                                   This highlights the significant gap in                                          having an acceptable coefficient of                                                       lab coefficients of variation for models
                                                 the data DOE used to justify the rule.                                            variation across labs. Notably, the low                                                   at that rate are 0.78, 1.59, 1.70, and 1.80
                                                 DOE assumed that low variation in one                                             input rate on that burner is 8,000 BTU.                                                   percent. The AHAM data would appear
                                                 lab means repeatability and                                                       AHAM units B, C, and D all have low                                                       to agree that one lab can repeat the same
                                                 reproducibility across labs. But AHAM’s                                           capacity burner rates of or about 5,000                                                   results, but that is not the full story.
                                                 round robin demonstrates that this is                                             BTU. DOE only tested one of its five
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Focusing on the units with low
                                                 not the case. Our round robin shows                                               units with a low capacity burner at
                                                 reproducibility is not present in the                                             5,000 BTU. DOE’s coefficient of                                                           simmer rates and digging deeper into
                                                 current procedure as demonstrated by                                              variation for that model was 1.40                                                         the data, AHAM’s data show the
                                                 only one of the three units, Unit A,                                              percent. Some of the best AHAM single                                                     following:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                   • On all units except one, Unit B, the                                          labs did not. Overall, on the high                                                        and none of the variation was
                                                 repeatability on the high capacity                                                capacity burner, the variation was                                                        within an acceptable range from
                                                 burner within the lab had acceptable                                              higher using the DOE test procedure                                                       lab-to-lab.
                                                 variation but the reproducibility across                                          than it was using the truncated test
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    EP25AP18.008</GPH>




                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014        18:10 Apr 24, 2018             Jkt 244001         PO 00000           Frm 00009         Fmt 4702         Sfmt 4702          E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM              25APP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                             17953

                                                    • On all units, the repeatability on the             to understand the impact of these                         1. Operator F conducted the test and
                                                 low capacity burner was marginal—25                     factors.                                               found the simmer setting and gas flow;
                                                 percent of the time the variation was                      This inherent variation in gas cooking                 2. Operator M conducted the test
                                                 greater than the two percent maximum                    product testing has been known for                     independently and found a simmer
                                                 target. There is a distinct difference in               decades and is the reason the safety test,             setting and gas flow;
                                                 the low capacity variation and the three                ANSI Z21.1, requires certified                            3. Operator M repeated the test using
                                                 units that had simmer at or near 5,000                  technicians to drill testing orifices. The             the Operator F simmer setting; and
                                                 BTU had significant repeatability and                   drilling of orifices achieves precise rates               4. Operator F repeated the test using
                                                 reproducibility issues. In some cases,                  for nominal, high, and low values.                     the Operator M simmer setting.
                                                 using the truncated test actually                       Experience shows that certified gas                       The results show that technicians are
                                                 improved lab-to-lab variation. This                     technicians can dial in the precise                    likely to be able to work to achieve
                                                 demonstrates that the burden associated                 values for assessment by using number                  passing results on their own efforts to
                                                 with determining the turn down                          sized drills but there are also factors the            determine a simmering setting. But
                                                 temperature in DOE’s full test procedure                technician must manage in this process                 when given the target setting, the results
                                                 is not always justified—it does not                     such as burrs from the drilling. AHAM                  show that it is likely that different
                                                 categorically improve repeatability and                 is not suggesting that DOE require                     technicians cannot recreate a first
                                                 reproducibility. Thus, not only is DOE’s                testing orifices be drilled for purposes of            technician’s passing result about half of
                                                 final test procedure rule unsupported by                energy testing—the burden is significant               the time.
                                                                                                         to say the least and would make the test                  The data also highlight that there are
                                                 sufficient data to demonstrate its
                                                                                                         unduly burdensome to conduct.                          more issues with finding the right
                                                 reproducibility, but it is also unduly
                                                                                                         Although such burden is justified for                  simmer setting on low capacity
                                                 burdensome to conduct. In addition,
                                                                                                         purposes of ensuring the safety of                     burners—the Lab Three technicians
                                                 this highlights the weakness in the DOE
                                                                                                         cooking products, which carry inherent                 each failed the first time they tried to set
                                                 test procedure which conducts a water
                                                                                                         safety risks, it is not justified for                  the low capacity burner. Also, see in
                                                 boil and simmer test on small burners
                                                                                                         purposes of energy testing. And,                       Exhibit A where an additional
                                                 that are not meant for either purpose. As
                                                                                                         because safety testing is not similar to               experiment was run with one of Lab
                                                 discussed above in Section I, those
                                                                                                         energy testing (for example, cooktops                  Four’s technicians developing the
                                                 burners are designed to provide a
                                                                                                         are tested on high for hours and                       simmer setting without using the
                                                 simmer only cooking function for
                                                                                                         products are over-stressed in abnormal                 previously provided information. This
                                                 melting chocolate and cooking sauces,
                                                                                                         conditions), it is not possible to re-use              resulted in different energy average and
                                                 not for boiling or simmering water.
                                                                                                         the units tested for safety purposes for               lower variation values between the two
                                                 B. Within Unit And Between Unit                         energy testing.                                        Lab 4 technicians.
                                                 Variation                                                  In addition, neither DOE nor AHAM                      According to these results, relying on
                                                                                                         have evaluated or accounted for the                    a given setting actually increased
                                                   DOE did not evaluate or account for                   additional variation inherent in                       variation and retests due to failing
                                                 variation within units. There are issues                producing gas products, i.e., between                  performance. Thus, though recording
                                                 inherent in testing gas cooktops and                    unit variation. This is significant                    the turn down temperature as required
                                                 ranges that contribute significantly to                 because it will add further variation on               by the Final Rule may help understand
                                                 within unit variation. For example,                     top of the within lab variation, lab to lab            differences in results between labs, it
                                                 heating value, gas pressure, and                        variation, and within unit variation. In               does not reduce variation. And it does
                                                 atmospheric pressures all have an                       order to ensure compliance with any                    not seem that simply following the test
                                                 impact. More specifically, as                           future energy conservation standard,                   procedure to the letter, as DOE
                                                 atmospheric pressure changes due to                     manufacturers will have to take this                   suggested in response to AHAM’s
                                                 weather, test results will vary even on                 total variation into account. The result               comments and discussed in Section II
                                                 the same unit from day to day. Also, gas                will likely be that it becomes difficult or            below, reduces variation. AHAM’s test
                                                 pressure and atmospheric pressure can                   impossible to meet standards because                   results demonstrate that additional
                                                 vary from run to run, and that can have                 the buffer needed to ensure accurate                   efforts to reduce variation on turndown
                                                 an impact on how the gas is mixing                      ratings will require levels of efficiency              settings were unsuccessful—even
                                                 within the burner port which then                       that are not economically justified or                 standardizing the simmering setting
                                                 impacts burner combustion and energy                    technologically feasible. AHAM                         does not drive sufficient variation
                                                 creation. Moreover, heating values vary                 explored this concept in more detail in                reduction. (Moreover, for gas products,
                                                 within a lab on a daily basis and likely                its comments on DOE’s proposed                         it will not be possible to specify
                                                 vary greatly between labs. Thus, the                    standards, which we hereby incorporate                 turndown settings for gas products due
                                                 same unit tested on different days in the               by reference.9                                         to orifice variation, which is discussed
                                                 same lab or in different labs will not                     One of the test requirements that will              in more detail below). Accordingly,
                                                 perform the same unless the heating                     vary within the unit is the simmer                     because DOE’s final test procedure does
                                                 value of the gas is the same. That is                   setting on gas products. Subsequent to                 not sufficiently reduce total variation,
                                                 statistically unlikely because values                   AHAM’s round robin, Lab Three                          DOE should withdraw the cooktop test
                                                 vary every day. It is not likely that the               conducted some additional investigative                procedure.
                                                 heating value is 1075, so there is a                    testing to determine whether using the
                                                 conversion from what it actually was to                 same simmering setting improves                        C. Full Population and Total Variation
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 1075 and this artificial adjustment                     repeatability. The lab used two different                As stated previously, DOE’s small
                                                 induces variation. Each of these factors,               operators to test a unit and provided                  sample size could not address the full
                                                 among others, individually and                          both with the same instructions, which                 population or total variation. Table 2
                                                 collectively contribute to variation from               are identified in Exhibit A. The test plan             below lists the units have been tested to
                                                 test to test and DOE has made no effort                 was as follows:                                        the final test procedure as specified
                                                   9 AHAM Comments on DOE’s SNOPR for Energy             Conventional Cooking Products; Docket No. EERE–        2014–BT–STD–0005; RIN 1904–AD15 (Nov. 2,
                                                 Conservation Standards for Residential                                                                         2016).



                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00010   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                 17954                      Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                 from both DOE’s sample and AHAM’s                          sample and Figure 3 shows the samples
                                                                                                            and their results graphically.
                                                                                                 TABLE 2—DOE AND AHAM TEST SAMPLES COMBINED
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Coefficient      Coeffiecient of
                                                                                          Minimum      Maximum                                                                                    Grate           Average          of variation    variation across
                                                                             Number of     input         input                 Burner                                                             weight       annual energy
                                                  Cooking unit     Width                                                                                           Grate type                                                        —1 lab          multiple labs
                                                                              burners       rate          rate              configuration                                                       per burner      consumption      (repeatability)   (reproducibility)
                                                                                          (Btu/hr)      (Btu/hr)                                                                                   lbs)           (kBtu/yr)            (%)                (%)

                                                 DOE 1 .........       30            4        9,000         9,000    open ............................   Steel-wire .........................           0.5              640.4              2.40                N/A
                                                 DOE 2 .........       30            4        5,000        15,000    Sealed .........................    Cast Iron ..........................           3.7              854.4              1.40                N/A
                                                 DOE 3 .........       36            6       18,000        18,000    Sealed—stacked .........            Cast Iron ..........................           4.4              974.8              0.40                N/A
                                                 DOE 4 .........       36            6        9,200        15,000    Sealed—stacked .........            Cast iron—Continuous .....                     5.8              963.5              0.30                N/A
                                                 DOE 5 .........       36            6       15,000        18,500    Sealed .........................    Cast iron—Continuous .....                       7              893.1              0.30                N/A
                                                 AHAM A ......         36            5        8,000        18,000    Sealed—stacked? .......             Cast iron—Continuous .....                       ?              936.3              0.89               3.60
                                                 AHAM B ......         30            4        5,000        15,000    Sealed .........................    Cast Iron ..........................             ?            1,034.1              9.20              17.10
                                                 AHAM C ......         30            4        5,000        15,000    Sealed .........................    Cast Iron ..........................             ?              843.1              2.70              12. 5
                                                 AHAM D ......         30            5        5,500        18,000    Sealed .........................    Cast Iron ..........................             ?            1,077.2              0.78              12.00




                                                    Figure 3 shows the units tested and                     III. DOE Has Not Demonstrated That                                                    is not supported by sufficient data. DOE
                                                 what their AAEC number is versus their                     The Test Procedure Is Repeatable Or                                                   conducted testing of five electric
                                                 lowest burner capacity rating. It                          Reproducible For Electric Cooktops.                                                   cooktops incorporating different heating
                                                 highlights how skewed the DOE                                                                                                                    technologies (one coil element cooktop,
                                                                                                               As discussed above, in response to the
                                                 sampling was, especially as compared to                                                                                                          two radiant element cooktops, and two
                                                                                                            August 2016 SNOPR, based on round-
                                                 AHAM’s. As discussed above in Section                                                                                                            induction cooktops) and control types
                                                                                                            robin testing, AHAM identified several
                                                 I, DOE identified that nearly half of the                                                                                                        (four with step controls and one with
                                                                                                            sources of potential variation that
                                                 models in the market had a 5,000 BTU                                                                                                             infinite). For each unit, DOE conducted
                                                                                                            needed to be resolved prior to DOE
                                                 burner. Yet, DOE selected only one unit                                                                                                          testing on surface units capturing a
                                                                                                            finalizing a cooktop test procedure. DOE
                                                 with a burner of that capacity. Aside                      conducted additional testing in order to                                              range of heating element sizes. DOE
                                                 from the fact that DOE’s sample                            evaluate AHAM’s concerns and made                                                     conducted two to three tests per surface
                                                 inadequately represents the market, this                   clarifications to attempt to address                                                  unit. For each individual test, DOE
                                                 demonstrates that DOE’s test procedure                     many of them. Unfortunately, DOE’s                                                    performed the full surface unit test
                                                 will produce inaccurate results for most                   testing was not sufficient to demonstrate                                             method, including the preliminary test
                                                 of the gas products on the market. The                     that the final test procedure                                                         required to determine the turndown
                                                                                                            significantly reduced the high degree of                                              temperature and simmering setting for a
                                                 test has a high degree of variation for
                                                                                                            total variation AHAM identified in its                                                given surface unit. DOE varied test
                                                 those products, as shown above, and,
                                                                                                            comments. AHAM does not agree that                                                    operators for surface unit tests, but did
                                                 thus, the test will not allow consumers
                                                                                                            the final test procedure is sufficiently                                              not test at different laboratories. DOE
                                                 to compare across products.
                                                                                                            repeatable and reproducible.                                                          also included test results from previous
                                                    Neither DOE nor AHAM have                                                                                                                     tests of these units conducted in support
                                                                                                            Accordingly, AHAM respectfully
                                                 evaluated or accounted for the all of the
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                            requests that DOE withdraw the cooktop                                                of the August 2016 SNOPR.
                                                 variation inherent in producing gas                        test procedure.                                                                          AHAM appreciates that DOE
                                                 products, i.e., total variation across the                                                                                                       conducted this testing. But it is not
                                                 population. It is a large task and                         A. DOE’s Testing
                                                                                                                                                                                                  enough to justify finalizing the test
                                                 assuming the small amount of work                             DOE did not do enough testing to                                                   procedure. DOE did not complete full
                                                 applies to the total picture is not                        verify that its clarifications resulted in                                            tests—it tested only two to three
                                                 acceptable and further supports the                        a final test procedure that is repeatable                                             burners. Although that is helpful in
                                                 withdrawal of the test procedure.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       EP25AP18.009</GPH>




                                                                                                            and reproducible and, so, the Final Rule                                              assessing potential variation, AHAM is


                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014     18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000      Frm 00011         Fmt 4702           Sfmt 4702        E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM                 25APP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                                  17955

                                                 concerned that DOE would finalize a                     request for DOE to withdraw the                        help in enforcement/verification actions
                                                 rule based on the results of only partial               cooktop test procedure.                                to understand differences in test results.
                                                 tests.                                                    Moreover, DOE did not engage                         Unfortunately, recording the setting will
                                                    DOE’s testing demonstrates a low                     stakeholders—either manufacturer labs                  do nothing to decrease variation or
                                                 average coefficient of variation of 1.2                 or third party labs—in its assessment of               prevent false findings of potential
                                                 percent. It is uncertain whether those                  the Final Rule. Thus, based on DOE’s                   noncompliance.
                                                 results are accurate given that DOE did                 testing, neither DOE nor stakeholders                     AHAM acknowledges that in its
                                                 assess the full IAEC for an entire                      have any idea what the actual total test               initial round robin, laboratories did not
                                                 cooktop. But, assuming that the partial                 procedure variation is. The test                       start at the lowest simmering setting—
                                                 tests do give a reasonable understanding                laboratory DOE used to run the tests in                laboratories started at the lowest setting
                                                 of repeatability and reproducibility,                   support of the proposed and final rules                they believed would be able to maintain
                                                 DOE has not identified why DOE’s                        will not be a lab that regularly runs the              a water temperature above and as close
                                                 coefficient of variation was so much                    test procedure when reporting and/or                   as possible to 90 °C. AHAM is a
                                                 lower than AHAM’s.                                      compliance with standards is                           proponent of conducting the test that
                                                    One potential reason is that DOE’s                   potentially required. (The labs that                   way in order to reduce test burden
                                                 testing did not truly test reproducibility              participated in AHAM’s round robin,                    which, as discussed further below, is
                                                 from lab to lab—DOE simply used                         will, of course, be conducting testing to              already significant.
                                                 different technicians for some of its                   demonstrate compliance with any
                                                 tests. DOE did not conduct testing on                                                                             Nevertheless, in order to understand
                                                                                                         potential future standards). Thus,
                                                 the same units in different labs. It makes                                                                     if variation would decrease by following
                                                                                                         because DOE’s reproducibility testing is
                                                 sense that under those conditions—                                                                             the letter of the test procedure as DOE
                                                                                                         essentially theoretical and only
                                                 using the same laboratory equipment                                                                            suggested in the Final Rule, AHAM, in
                                                                                                         simulates a round robin test, DOE’s
                                                 and test technicians trained in the same                                                                       conducting a round robin on gas
                                                                                                         testing is helpful, but not enough to
                                                 laboratory—variation would be lower.                                                                           cooktops, required participating
                                                                                                         determine the repeatability and
                                                 DOE’s test parameters did not accurately                                                                       laboratories to (a) follow the DOE test
                                                                                                         reproducibility of the test.
                                                 simulate reproducibility. The                                                                                  procedure for selection of the simmering
                                                 simulation run by DOE only changed                      B. Determining the Simmering Setting                   setting; (b) record their simmering
                                                 the test technician. It is unclear from                   AHAM commented that there is                         setting; and (c) for the first lab, mark the
                                                 DOE’s analysis if those technicians had                 variability in determining the                         turn down temperature on the unit
                                                 previous knowledge of the procedure or                  simmering setting for the simmering                    itself.10 Our data, which are discussed
                                                 were allowed to imprint their                           phase of the test and noted that the                   above in Section II, show that following
                                                 interpretation on the execution of the                  simmering setting plays an important                   the letter of the test procedure does not
                                                 test. DOE did not simulate running the                  role in the overshoot temperature and                  sufficiently reduce variation. In
                                                 test with different equipment and a                     the ability to maintain a temperature as               particular, lab-to-lab variation remains
                                                 different environment, as would be run                  close as possible to 90 °C during the                  high for gas cooktops and AHAM’s
                                                 in a true round robin.                                  simmering phase of the test.                           round robin testing for electric cooktops
                                                    Conversely, AHAM’s tests were                          DOE responded that it expects that                   provided data to support a conclusion
                                                 conducted on the same units in three                    correctly following the methodology—                   that it is likely also high for electric
                                                 (now four) different laboratories. Those                starting with the lowest simmering                     cooktops. DOE did not adequately
                                                 laboratories have different technicians                 setting and repeating the test as                      address AHAM’s concern in its Final
                                                 with different training, different                      necessary with the next highest setting                Rule and AHAM’s gas testing casts
                                                 equipment, and, potentially, different                  until the setting that maintains the                   further doubt on this question.
                                                 interpretations of the test procedure.                  water temperature above, but as close as                  AHAM incorporates by reference the
                                                 These true round robin conditions are                   possible to 90 °C, is identified—will                  data we submitted to DOE during the
                                                 far more likely to reveal ambiguity in                  result in only a single appropriate                    rulemaking regarding our electric round
                                                 the test and sensitivities that cause                   simmering setting for a given surface                  robin, which is summarized in the
                                                 variation. They also replicate a real                   unit.                                                  below tables. These data highlight that
                                                 scenario—one lab attempting to verify                     DOE agreed with AHAM that the                        the simmer setting is a significant
                                                 the results of a different lab. As                      selection of the simmering setting has a               source of variation. Because DOE has
                                                 discussed above in Section II, the testing              significant impact on the overall energy               not yet adequately addressed it, and,
                                                 conducted to date, necessarily, has a                   consumption of a surface unit and                      thus has not sufficiently demonstrated
                                                 low confidence level and the differences                amended Appendix I to require that the                 that its test procedure is valid, DOE
                                                 between AHAM’s and DOE’s results                        simmering setting selection for the                    should withdraw the cooktop test
                                                 demonstrate that. AHAM’s testing                        energy test cycle of each cooking area/                procedure.
                                                 resulted in significantly higher variation              zone be recorded. AHAM appreciates
                                                 than DOE’s and the large confidence                     that DOE required recording the                          10 Results of the AHAM gas round robin are

                                                 interval that results supports AHAM’s                   simmering setting selection—it will                    discussed in Section II.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00012   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                 17956                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules




                                                 C. Spiking Temperatures When                            reduce total variation—to do so could be                  DOE did, however, examine its own
                                                 Reaching 90 °C                                          considered arbitrary and capricious.                   data. DOE indicated that it observed
                                                    AHAM commented that our round                        Total variation is made up of within lab               only one electric smooth-radiant
                                                 robin demonstrated difficulty in                        and between lab variations AND within                  cooktop in its sample for which the
                                                 determining when the water                              and between units variations. DOE only                 heater cycled on and off during the heat-
                                                 temperature first reaches 90 °C to start                addressed some of the within lab                       up phase of the test. That particular unit
                                                 the 20-minute simmering phase of the                    variation causes, meaning that other                   cycled back on within a few seconds of
                                                 test because, when the temperature first                causes of variation are unaddressed.                   cycling off and, as a result, the water
                                                 reaches that temperature, it may                        DOE does not have sufficient data to                   temperature continued to rise at a
                                                 oscillate slightly above or below it.                   demonstrate that the test procedure is                 ‘‘fairly steady state.’’ Thus, DOE
                                                 DOE’s testing showed similar                            reproducible and should withdraw the                   concluded that it was infrequent for
                                                 fluctuations. Thus, DOE amended                         test.                                                  heating elements to cycle during the
                                                 Appendix I to clarify that the 20-minute                                                                       heat-up phase and, so, it was unlikely
                                                 simmering period starts when the water                  D. Heating Element Cycling                             that other electric smooth-radiant
                                                 temperature first reaches 90 °C and does                                                                       cooktops would require any substantive
                                                                                                            AHAM commented that cycling of                      amount of heating element cycling to
                                                 not drop below 90 °C for more than 20                   power to the heating element is
                                                 seconds after initially reaching 90 °C.                                                                        protect the glass surface. DOE indicated
                                                                                                         unpredictable and causes variation in                  that it did not expect any measurable
                                                    AHAM thanks DOE for making this
                                                                                                         test results. It is unknown if the surface             impacts of heating element cycling on
                                                 clarification which seems like it could
                                                                                                         unit will cycle the heating element off                the total measured per-cycle energy
                                                 reduce variation. DOE’s testing—
                                                                                                         during a critical phase of the test—i.e.,              consumption.
                                                 completed in a single lab and with
                                                 technicians trained in the same lab—                    at the start of the simmering phase or                    DOE based its conclusions on the
                                                 does not, however, adequately                           when determining the simmering                         single unit in its sample and is guessing
                                                 demonstrate that this clarification                     setting. In response to DOE’s September                that because only one unit in its small
                                                 sufficiently reduces variation and                      27, 2016 data request, AHAM provided                   sample did not cycle on and off during
                                                 improves reproducibility. AHAM’s                        further data on how this was observed                  the heat-up phase, it must not occur
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 members were not able to dedicate                       during our testing. DOE could not have                 frequently and/or if it does, it will not
                                                 resources to re-performing a round robin                reviewed or considered that data in                    have a measurable impact on the total
                                                 to verify DOE’s findings on a single unit.              drafting the Final Rule given that the                 per-cycle energy consumption. But
                                                 Without knowing whether total                           Final Rule was issued the same day                     AHAM also observed element cycling
                                                 variation has, in fact, been reduced,                   AHAM provided the data. AHAM                           during its testing. Thus, in only the
                                                 DOE should not have finalized the test                  incorporates the data we submitted on                  small amount of testing conducted in
                                                 procedure and DOE cannot rely on                        November 23, 2016, in this petition by                 the U.S. to date, unit cycling during the
                                                                                                                                                                                                             EP25AP18.012</GPH>




                                                 assumptions that this change will                       reference.                                             heat-up phase has been observed twice.


                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00013   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                           17957

                                                 That is not insignificant. Almost 20                    can change. Moreover, for smooth top                   and limit pan bottom temperature and is
                                                 percent of units in the combined AHAM                   electric ranges, heating element cycling               aimed at reducing the incidences of
                                                 and DOE tested sample experienced                       also serves a safety function. Such                    unattended cooking fires. It represents a
                                                 unit cycling.                                           cooktops are equipped with a glass                     major redesign for all electric coil
                                                    Moreover, AHAM submitted                             break sensor to monitor temperature.                   cooktops by every manufacturer. The
                                                 additional data to DOE regarding the                    That sensor will dictate when a unit                   change will be required to show
                                                 unit cycling it observed. As mentioned                  needs to cycle down to avoid glass                     compliance on coil cooktops with the
                                                 in that data submission, AHAM tested                    breakage. AHAM is concerned that the                   updated voluntary safety standard as of
                                                 two eight-inch coil elements on                         test procedure, as finalized by DOE,                   June 15, 2018.
                                                 different cooktops with the same model                  could drive changes to the algorithm for
                                                 number to evaluate unit to unit                         heating element cycling design. Any                       Given the date of this requirement, it
                                                 variation. One cooktop cycled during                    such changes will result in significant                is certain that any cooktop standard
                                                 the T70 turndown test and the other did                 product development efforts which have                 DOE may promulgate (and AHAM
                                                 not. The unit that cycled resulted in a                 not been accounted for in DOE’s test                   opposes any change to the existing
                                                 higher turn down temperature when                       procedure rulemaking. A test procedure                 standards for conventional cooking
                                                 compared to the test that did not cycle.                change should not dictate this sort of                 products) would apply to these newly
                                                 The unit did not cycle on either test run               design change simply to manage                         designed products. But, because these
                                                 during the final T90 simmer test. The                   uncertainty and variation.11                           products are still in development, DOE
                                                 high Tc value caused one test run to                      For these reasons, DOE should                        has not done testing on products using
                                                 have a higher overshoot and allowed for                 withdraw the cooktop test procedure                    these controls and neither have
                                                 a lower turn down during the simmer                     due to total variation that is not fully               manufacturers. Because company
                                                 phase driving unit to unit variation.                   understood and, from available data,                   designs to comply with the UL 858
                                                 This resulted in 36 watts less power on                 appears to be at an unacceptable level.                requirements may involve cycling of the
                                                 the unit with the lower turn down. This                 E. Upcoming New Cooktop Designs                        element, it is quite possible that heating
                                                 is six percent of the normalized power                                                                         element cycling will be different than it
                                                 level. Six percent is not insignificant                   As AHAM has commented to DOE                         is for existing products. Thus, DOE’s
                                                 and demonstrates the potential                          many times, Underwriters Laboratory                    data, even as supplemented by AHAM’s
                                                 difference between the energy measured                  (UL) Standard 858 will soon require a
                                                                                                                                                                data, on heating element cycling may be
                                                 on two units of the same construction.                  new test for electric coil element
                                                                                                                                                                irrelevant because it does not represent
                                                 DOE should withdraw the Final Rule for                  cooktops. The change to the voluntary
                                                                                                                                                                products that will be on the market if
                                                 cooktops and review and consider the                    safety standard, which AHAM
                                                                                                                                                                the test is required to demonstrate
                                                 data AHAM submitted. This issue must                    developed and proposed to UL with the
                                                                                                         support of the Consumer Product Safety                 compliance with possible energy
                                                 be addressed in order to reduce total                                                                          conservation standards.
                                                 variation.                                              Commission, will require electric coil
                                                    Furthermore, DOE did not address the                 element cooktops and ranges to monitor                    As shown in Figure 4, initial data,
                                                 arguments AHAM made about the                                                                                  based on testing conducted by Primaria
                                                 uncertainty regarding how unit cycling
                                                                                                           11 It is possible, for example, consumers often      LLC to develop UL 858’s new
                                                                                                         jump from one side (rolling boil) to the other side    requirements, show that though time to
                                                 will impact test results and test                       (boil action lost) a couple of times before they
                                                 burden—this is a significant concern                    understand where to set the dial to maintain their
                                                                                                                                                                boil water may not increase significantly
                                                 and could drive redesign of products.                   desired simmering temperature. If manufacturers        using temperature limiting controls on
                                                 Heating element cycling is key to                       make the dials more precise in order to reduce         coil cooktops, the difference could be
                                                                                                         variation in the energy test, that could result in     enough to further impact the current
                                                 cooking performance for electric ranges                 more settings and consumers could change back
                                                 because the algorithm that governs                      and forth more times because they see less impact      assumptions on variation. And, the
                                                 heating element cycling controls the                    in adjusting the knob. This could actually drive       control cycling could be somewhat
                                                                                                         consumers to use more energy in the field.             different as well. DOE should
                                                 temperature of the food being cooked. If                Accordingly, DOE should examine potential
                                                 the temperature is not properly                         unintended consequences of addressing this
                                                                                                                                                                understand how the energy test will
                                                 maintained, the consistency of the food                 uncertainty.                                           respond to these new technologies.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00014   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                 17958                  Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules




                                                 F. Pan Warpage                                          experience doing significant testing,                  yet shown because the pans have yet to
                                                                                                         AHAM proposed a cast iron alternative                  warp substantially. Significantly, using
                                                   Although DOE sought feedback on the                   to aluminum pans for the test. UL                      a warped stainless steel pan on a
                                                 degree to which the heating element or                  published this update in August of                     ceramic cooktop did increase the boil
                                                 cookware may deform and impact the                      2017. The shift is to account for warping              time with the cooktop fire mitigation
                                                 heat transfer between the two surfaces                  and the variation and lack of                          control active (that control cycles the
                                                 in its rulemaking on energy                             repeatability it is driving in the safety              element on and off per an algorithm).
                                                 conservation standards for cooktops,                    assessment. There is no reason to                      And, warpage on stainless steel pans
                                                 DOE did not investigate the impact of                   believe this variation will not also                   style will cause a difference in energy
                                                 pan warpage on the repeatability and                    extend to energy testing.                              use on units without a limiting control
                                                 reproducibility of the test procedure.                    The data from the UL 858 work with                   as shown in Figure 5. DOE’s failure to
                                                   The UL 858 test for coil cooktops                     Primaira show that any variation in                    further investigate this issue means that
                                                 initially required use of an aluminum                   pans of the same type will drive                       its test procedure is not adequately
                                                 pan. But, based on manufacturer                         variation that the energy testing has not              supported.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                                                                                                                            EP25AP18.010</GPH>




                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                                                               17959




                                                 IV. The Cooktop Test Procedure Is                                           doing so does not serve any purpose as                           with the test procedure. DOE
                                                 Unduly Burdensome To Conduct.                                               it appears that it does not decrease                             determined that the test procedure
                                                    The discussion in the sections above                                     variation.                                                       would cost $700 per test for labor, with
                                                 highlights several significant burdens                                         • The ambient temperature                                     a one-time investment of $2,000 for new
                                                 associated with conducting DOE’s                                            requirements are incredibly tight and it                         test equipment, which was split
                                                 cooktop test procedure that AHAM                                            is difficult or impossible for some                              between test pots and other
                                                 believes make it unduly burdensome to                                       laboratories to meet them without                                instrumentation. AHAM collected data
                                                 conduct. Specifically:                                                      investing in lab improvements. Some                              from its members on the cost of the test
                                                    • The test procedure takes about 20                                      companies had difficulty maintaining                             procedure, both ongoing and initial
                                                 hours for an average four burner                                            the ambient conditions and AHAM                                  investments. This data is based on
                                                 cooktop and requires the testing of every                                   could not use their data in its round                            company experience with the test
                                                 single burner or element individually.                                      robin results.                                                   through AHAM’s round robins and in
                                                 And, because the test requires the                                             • Test pots will warp during testing
                                                                                                                                                                                              testing in Europe, on the number of
                                                 technician to determine the turn-down                                       and will need to either be repaired or
                                                                                                                                                                                              models each company has, and on the
                                                 temperature before every test and the                                       replaced frequently.
                                                                                                                                • The test procedure variation means                          potential need for third party testing.
                                                 ambient conditions are quite tight,
                                                                                                                             that manufacturers will need to add a                            AHAM’s data show that DOE
                                                 several runs are often required before a
                                                 valid run can be achieved. Our testing                                      larger than usual ‘‘buffer’’ to any                              significantly underestimated the cost
                                                 found that some tests took upward of                                        eventual energy conservation standards                           associated with running the cooktop test
                                                 five days for a single cooktop.                                             ratings, which will effectively increase                         procedure.
                                                    • As indicated by AHAM’s truncated                                       the stringency of any future standard,                              Table 3 below shows the difference
                                                 gas test plan, it is burdensome to                                          probably by a large amount.                                      between DOE’s estimates in the Final
                                                 determine the turn down temperature                                            In addition to the test burden itself,                        Rule and AHAM’s data.
                                                 for each individual test and burner. And                                    there is also substantial cost associated

                                                                                                       TABLE 3—PER TEST COSTS (DOE ESTIMATE V. AHAM DATA)
                                                                                        Cooktop full product line                                                              One time (initial year)                      On-going (annual)

                                                                                 Per test costs (per manufacturer)                                                             DOE              AHAM                     DOE                 AHAM
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 Labor Costs .....................................................................................................                   $700             $970        ........................      $970
                                                 Instrumentation (equipment for testing) ...........................................................                                   15            1,432        ........................        1 38

                                                 Test pots (vessels) ..........................................................................................                       152              113        ........................      2 209

                                                 Testing structures ............................................................................................                        8              159        ........................        3 43

                                                 Transducer (for ambient air temp.) ..................................................................                                  2              N/A        ........................           0

                                                       Total ..........................................................................................................               876            2,673                          700         1,260
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         EP25AP18.011</GPH>




                                                    Note: On average, 543 tests will be required to certify companies’ full product lines.



                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014        18:10 Apr 24, 2018          Jkt 244001       PO 00000       Frm 00016        Fmt 4702       Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM       25APP1


                                                 17960                     Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules

                                                    1 This   includes equipment maintenance (new/existing and calibrations for testing equipment).
                                                    2 Manufacturers     will require ongoing replacement of test pots due to warping.
                                                    3 This   includes increased/new annual costs from third party labs and/or UL and ISO (re) certification.


                                                    One of the significant differences                          require testing of all models in order to                 to be tested is shown below in Table 4.
                                                 between DOE’s estimate and AHAM’s                              determine likely model families,                          DOE cost estimations (particularly for
                                                 data is the total number of tests required                     particularly because cooking products                     labor) are on a per-test basis. As
                                                 and the number of models to be tested.                         are complex. It will be difficult to                      described above, it is difficult to
                                                 It is difficult for manufacturers to                           determine which models can be                             determine the total number of tests to be
                                                 determine at this stage how many basic                         grouped together in a basic model. That                   performed in the initial year. Comparing
                                                 models they would have. DOE’s                                  said, AHAM understands that not each                      the DOE estimation of number of tests
                                                 proposed energy conservation standards                         individual model will need to be tested.                  to AHAM member data shows a
                                                 for cooktops, which AHAM strongly                              Thus, it is likely that something                         signficant difference or wide range. As
                                                                                                                between DOE’s estimate and AHAM’s                         a result, total costs are substantially
                                                 opposes, would be the first time
                                                                                                                data would be the actual average total
                                                 manufacturers would need to certify                                                                                      higher when considering the average
                                                                                                                number of models tested.
                                                 compliance with standards and                                    Nevertheless, the difference in the                     number of tests required according to
                                                 determine basic models. To do that may                         number of tests and number of models                      AHAM member data.

                                                                                         TABLE 4—AVERAGE NUMBER OF TESTS AND MODELS TO BE TESTED
                                                                                                                                                                                                 Estimated total cost
                                                                                 Tests/models comparison                                                    DOE            AHAM
                                                                                                                                                                                                DOE                AHAM

                                                 Average total number of tests required ...........................................................               66               543            $46,000         $1,100,000
                                                 Average total number of models tested ..........................................................                 21               166             58,000          1,450,000



                                                    Another important difference is that                            TABLE 5—COMPREHENSIVE COSTS                             average consumers were outweighed by
                                                 DOE did not address upfront                                                                                                the risk that certain consumers would
                                                 investments made in order for                                                                               Overall per    not realize the savings and the adverse
                                                 manufacturers to be able to perform the                                                                   company costs loss of industry net present value,
                                                                                                                   Cooktop full product line
                                                 test procedure. But those costs should                                                                       AHAM
                                                                                                                                                                            among other things. Thus, DOE
                                                 not be ignored. Manufacturers identified                                                                                   prescribed standards consisting of
                                                 significant investments in specialized                         Labor costs (annual total sal-                              prescriptive design standards, not
                                                 equipment to perform the test procedure                          aries) .................................     1 $272,186   energy performance standards. As we
                                                 successfully. For example, all                                 Instrumentation (equipment                                  have commented previously, AHAM
                                                                                                                  for testing) .........................         2 376,635
                                                 respondants to AHAM’s survey                                                                                               does not believe anything has changed
                                                                                                                Test pots (vessels) ...............                3 84,200
                                                 expressed frustration in obtaining the                                                                                     since 2009 to justify amended
                                                                                                                Testing structures .................             4 368,100
                                                 necessary test pots because the supplier                                                                                   standards.12 The available technology
                                                                                                                Transducer (for ambient air                                 options have not changed. The energy
                                                 is overseas. Acquiring even one set is                           temp.) ................................               N/A
                                                                                                                                                                            savings opportunities remain small.
                                                 difficult, as AHAM has discussed in
                                                 previous comments, and the cost is                               Total ..................................      1,101,121 Thus, the cooktop test procedure is not
                                                                                                                                                                            necessary and its burden is not balanced
                                                 about $9,500 excluding shipping and                              Note: Overall costs may not align with per- by any benefit to consumers.
                                                 handling. Manufacturers indicated they                         test costs due to reporting measures and
                                                                                                                                                                              Given the extraordinary regulatory
                                                 would require between three and 24 sets                        averaging.
                                                                                                                  1 Annual     salary for full-time technicians burden the cooktop test procedure will
                                                 to do certification testing.                                   across multiple labs (1 to 5, up to 13 stations/ place on manufacturers, the procedure
                                                    DOE concluded that it would cost                            chambers).                                                  is an ideal candidate for repeal
                                                                                                                  1 Annual     salary for full-time technicians
                                                 about $500 to fabricate existing testing                       across multiple labs (1 to 5, up to 13 stations/ consistent with Executive Order 13771,
                                                 structures. But manufacturers identified                       chambers).
                                                                                                                  2 Specialized     equipment    (designed/pur-             12 See AHAM Comments on DOE’s Energy
                                                 significantly higher costs. AHAM’s
                                                                                                                chased) to complete test procedure.                       Conservation Standards for Residential Cooking
                                                 members consistently cited investments                           3 Companies require on average 3 sets of                Products, Request for Information; Docket No.
                                                 to redesign entire lab stations and                            test pots to be replaced over multiple years.             EERE–2014–BT–STD–0005; RIN 1904–AD15 (Apr.
                                                 expand facility space. These changes                             4 Combination of costs from third party labs,           14, 2014) (AHAM does not, however, believe that
                                                 would be needed to control for ambient                         certifications (UL/CSA/ISO), retrofitting existing        energy conservation standards different from those
                                                                                                                facilities.                                               currently in place for conventional cooking
                                                 temperature at the tight levels DOE’s                                                                                    products are technologically feasible or
                                                 test requires, cool test units, add new                           The test and cost burden associated                    economically justified. There have been no
                                                 equipment, and account for much                                                                                          significant changes since the existing standards for
                                                                                                                with the cooktop test procedure is not                    gas cooking tops and ‘‘no standard’’ standard for
                                                 higher volumes of testing. AHAM also                           likely justified by any balancing benefit
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                                                                                          other conventional cooking products were
                                                 believes that third party testing (for                         to consumers or the environment. In                       promulgated that would result in justified
                                                 certification only) could cost over                            2009, DOE determined that none of the                     standards. The available technology options have
                                                                                                                                                                          not changed, the energy savings opportunity
                                                 $2,500 per model. Table 5 details the                          trial standards levels that included                      remains small, and consumer cooking behavior still
                                                 comprehensive costs.                                           efficiency standards instead of just                      plays a significant role in the energy use of cooking
                                                                                                                prescriptive design standards had                         products. In addition, AHAM believes that the
                                                                                                                benefits that were outweighed by the                      introduction of new standards for cooking products
                                                                                                                                                                          could have a significant impact on the utility of
                                                                                                                economic burden that would be placed                      cooking products . . .’’).
                                                                                                                on consumers. DOE found that the
                                                                                                                potential economic savings realized by
                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014     18:10 Apr 24, 2018     Jkt 244001    PO 00000     Frm 00017    Fmt 4702     Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2018 / Proposed Rules                                          17961

                                                 Reducing Regulation and Controlling                     DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND                               anyone else’s Social Security number, or
                                                 Regulatory Costs, which requires                        HUMAN SERVICES                                         confidential business information, such
                                                 agencies to repeal two regulations for                                                                         as a manufacturing process. Please note
                                                 every new one issued and offset the                     Food and Drug Administration                           that if you include your name, contact
                                                 costs. Because, as AHAM has                                                                                    information, or other information that
                                                 demonstrated above, DOE’s cooktop test                  21 CFR Part 101                                        identifies you in the body of your
                                                 procedure may be considered arbitrary                   [Docket No. FDA–2018–D–0075]                           comments, that information will be
                                                 and capricious because it is not                                                                               posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
                                                                                                         The Declaration of Added Sugars on                       • If you want to submit a comment
                                                 supported by sufficient data and likely
                                                                                                         Honey, Maple Syrup, and Certain                        with confidential information that you
                                                 has a high degree of total variation, the
                                                                                                         Cranberry Products: Draft Guidance                     do not wish to be made available to the
                                                 test procedure does not benefit                                                                                public, submit the comment as a
                                                 consumers. It serves only to burden                     for Industry; Extension of Comment
                                                                                                         Period                                                 written/paper submission and in the
                                                 manufacturers who must comply with a                                                                           manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper
                                                 test procedure that does not adequately                 AGENCY:    Food and Drug Administration,               Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’).
                                                 represent products and, due to                          HHS.
                                                 variation, will require manufacturers to                ACTION: Notification of availability;                  Written/Paper Submissions
                                                 make conservative claims.                               extension of comment period.                              Submit written/paper submissions as
                                                                                                                                                                follows:
                                                 CONCLUSION                                              SUMMARY:   The Food and Drug                              • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
                                                                                                         Administration (FDA or we) is                          written/paper submissions): Dockets
                                                    Because AHAM’s testing shows that                    extending the comment period for the                   Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and
                                                 DOE did not sufficiently demonstrate                    notification of availability of a draft                Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
                                                 that the cooktop test procedure is                      guidance for industry entitled ‘‘The                   Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
                                                 repeatable or reproducible for gas and                  Declaration of Added Sugars on Honey,                     • For written/paper comments
                                                 electric cooktops, because DOE has yet                  Maple Syrup, and Certain Cranberry                     submitted to the Dockets Management
                                                 to demonstrate—as EPCA requires it to                   Products: Guidance for Industry’’ that                 Staff, FDA will post your comment, as
                                                 do—that the final test procedure is                     appeared in the Federal Register of                    well as any attachments, except for
                                                 representative for gas cooktops, and                    March 2, 2018. The draft guidance,                     information submitted, marked and
                                                 because the test procedure is unduly                    when finalized, will advise food                       identified, as confidential, if submitted
                                                 burdensome to conduct, we respectfully                  manufacturers of our intent to exercise                as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’
                                                 request that DOE withdraw the final                     enforcement discretion related to the                     Instructions: All submissions received
                                                 cooktop test procedure while                            use in the Nutrition Facts label of a                  must include the Docket No. FDA–
                                                 maintaining the repeal of the oven test                 symbol ‘‘†’’ immediately after the added               2018–D–0075 for ‘‘The Declaration of
                                                 procedure that was part of this same                    sugars percent Daily Value information                 Added Sugars on Honey, Maple Syrup,
                                                 Final Rule. Even absent an energy                       on certain foods. The symbol would                     and Certain Cranberry Products:
                                                 conservation standard for cooktops that                 lead the reader to truthful and non-                   Guidance for Industry.’’ Received
                                                 requires use of the test procedure,                     misleading statements outside the                      comments will be placed in the docket
                                                 manufacturers are required to report                    Nutrition Facts label to provide                       and, except for those submitted as
                                                 energy use via a test procedure DOE has                 additional information regarding the                   ‘‘Confidential Submissions,’’ publicly
                                                                                                         added sugars present in particular                     viewable at https://www.regulations.gov
                                                 not demonstrated is representative of
                                                                                                         foods. We are taking this action in                    or at the Dockets Management Staff
                                                 consumer use for all product types and
                                                                                                         response to requests for an extension to               between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
                                                 AHAM has demonstrated is not                            allow interested persons additional time               through Friday.
                                                 reproducible. This means that reported                  to submit comments.                                       • Confidential Submissions—To
                                                 energy values for some products could                                                                          submit a comment with confidential
                                                                                                         DATES: We are extending the comment
                                                 be inaccurate and, for all products, will               period on the document that published                  information that you do not wish to be
                                                 not be directly comparable to each other                in the Federal Register of March 2, 2018               made publicly available, submit your
                                                 across manufacturers. Thus, consumers                   (83 FR 8953). Submit either electronic                 comments only as a written/paper
                                                 could be misled when evaluating and                     or written comments by June 15, 2018.                  submission. You should submit two
                                                 comparing energy claims. Accordingly,                   ADDRESSES: You may submit comments                     copies total. One copy will include the
                                                 we also seek an immediate stay of the                   as follows:                                            information you claim to be confidential
                                                 effectiveness of the cooktop test                                                                              with a heading or cover note that states
                                                 procedure, including the requirement                    Electronic Submissions                                 ‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
                                                 that manufacturers use the final test                     Submit electronic comments in the                    CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ The
                                                 procedure to make energy related                        following way:                                         Agency will review this copy, including
                                                 claims.                                                   • Federal eRulemaking Portal:                        the claimed confidential information, in
                                                                                                         https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the                its consideration of comments. The
                                                 Respectfully submitted,
                                                                                                         instructions for submitting comments.                  second copy, which will have the
                                                 Association of Home Appliance                           Comments submitted electronically,                     claimed confidential information
                                                 Manufacturers By:                                       including attachments, to https://                     redacted/blacked out, will be available
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                 Jennifer Cleary,                                        www.regulations.gov will be posted to                  for public viewing and posted on
                                                 Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs, 1111 19th          the docket unchanged. Because your                     https://www.regulations.gov. Submit
                                                 St. NW, Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036,                comment will be made public, you are                   both copies to the Dockets Management
                                                 202-872-5955 x314.                                      solely responsible for ensuring that your              Staff. If you do not wish your name and
                                                 [FR Doc. 2018–08641 Filed 4–24–18; 8:45 am]             comment does not include any                           contact information to be made publicly
                                                 BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
                                                                                                         confidential information that you or a                 available, you can provide this
                                                                                                         third party may not wish to be posted,                 information on the cover sheet and not
                                                                                                         such as medical information, your or                   in the body of your comments and you


                                            VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:10 Apr 24, 2018   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00018   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\25APP1.SGM   25APP1



Document Created: 2018-11-02 08:16:45
Document Modified: 2018-11-02 08:16:45
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionNotification of petition for rulemaking; request for comment.
DatesWritten comments and information are requested on or before June 25, 2018.
ContactCelia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. E-mail: [email protected]; (202) 287-6122.
FR Citation83 FR 17944 
CFR Citation10 CFR 429
10 CFR 430

2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR