[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17944-17961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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