[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24133-24144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07673]



[[Page 24133]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006]


Energy Conservation Program: Notification of Petition for 
Rulemaking

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

ACTION: Notification of petition for rulemaking; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: On January 12, 2023, the Department of Energy (``DOE'') 
received a petition from the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers (``AHAM'') to consider amendments to the conventional 
cooking products test procedure to allow a calculation in place of 
certain testing provisions for conventional cooking tops, clarify the 
definition of the term specialty cooking zone, clarify the equipment 
used to measure electric coil heating element diameter, and stay the 
effectiveness of any mandatory use of the test procedure. Through this 
notification, DOE seeks comment on the petition, as well as any data or 
information that could be used in DOE's determination whether to grant 
the petition.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before May 19, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006, by any of the 
following methods:
    Email: [email protected]. Include the 
docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, 
please submit all items on a compact disc (``CD''), in which case it is 
not necessary to include printed copies.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a 
public meeting is held), comments, and other supporting documents/
materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly 
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop 
EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), 
5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other things, that ``[e]ach agency 
shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, 
amendment, or repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) DOE received a 
petition from AHAM, as described in this document and set forth 
verbatim below,\1\ requesting that DOE amend the testing provisions for 
conventional cooking tops in it test procedure for conventional cooking 
products at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1 (``appendix I1''). 
In announcing this petition for public comment, DOE is seeking views on 
whether it should grant the petition and undertake a rulemaking to 
consider the proposal contained in the petition. By seeking comment on 
whether to grant this petition, DOE takes no position at this time 
regarding the merits of the suggested rulemaking or the assertions in 
AHAM's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AHAM's petition for rulemaking is available in the docket at 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2023-BT-TP-0006-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, AHAM also requests that DOE stay the effectiveness 
of any mandatory use of the test procedure. Regarding the mandatory use 
of the test procedure for representations, under the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (``EPCA''), effective 180 days after a test procedure 
is published in the Federal Register, representations regarding the 
energy use or efficiency of the covered product are required to be made 
in accordance with the new or amended test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(c)(2)) The final rule establishing appendix I1 was published on 
August 22, 2022, which resulted in the February 20, 2023, 
representations compliance date. 87 FR 51492. While DOE may grant 
individual manufacturers an extension of up to 180 days based on a 
showing of undue hardship (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)), DOE cannot grant a 
blanket, indefinite extension of this requirement.
    Additionally, as specified in the Note to appendix I1, use of the 
test procedure is not required until the compliance date of any energy 
conservation standards for cooking tops. DOE is currently conducting a 
rulemaking to consider establishing energy conservation standards for 
conventional cooking products, including conventional cooking tops. 88 
FR 6818.
    In its petition, AHAM also requests that DOE consider amendments to 
the appendix I1 test procedure to: (1) allow a calculation to be used 
as an alternative to the simmer portion of the test to determine the 
energy consumption of each cooking zone, (2) clarify the definition of 
``specialty cooking zone'' to more explicitly specify categories of 
cooking zones and cooking products that are considered to be specialty 
cooking zones and therefore would be excluded from the scope of the DOE 
test procedure, and (3) clarify the equipment used to measure the 
diameter of electric coil heating elements. AHAM also requests that DOE 
update its enforcement regulations to require DOE to use both the 
simmer test and AHAM's suggested alternative calculation method in 
assessment and enforcement testing to determine compliance with energy 
conservation standards, should DOE establish such standards.
    In the docket for this petition, DOE has provided a data summary 
for the purposes of evaluating the merits of establishing a calculation 
method as an alternative to the simmer portion of the test. In 
particular, the report provides graphical representations of the 
difference between measured results--representing the appendix I1 test 
conducted in its entirety--and results

[[Page 24134]]

calculated using the alternative method suggested by AHAM, for each 
cooking zone for which data was available in both AHAM's and DOE's test 
samples.
    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of the petition, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    (1) The test burden associated with the simmer portion of the test 
procedure for conventional cooking tops, including third-party testing 
costs;
    (2) Any additional test data of conventional cooking tops tested to 
appendix I1 that can be used to verify the accuracy of the recommended 
equations for determining the energy use of individual cooking zones;
    (3) The accuracy of the energy consumption of each cooking zone 
that would be determined using the recommended calculation approach in 
place of the simmer portion of the cooking top test for the different 
cooking top technologies (e.g., electric coil, electric radiant, 
induction, and gas);
    (4) In evaluating whether the calculation approach maintains the 
accuracy (i.e., representativeness) of the full testing approach, the 
maximum difference (in kilowatt-hours per year or British thermal units 
per year, as applicable, or as a percentage) between the measured and 
calculated values for a cooking zone's energy consumption that should 
be considered by DOE as being indicative of the calculation approach 
providing results that are equally as representative as the full 
testing approach;
    (5) The extent to which portable cooking tops can or should be 
tested under appendix I1; and
    (6) The extent to which cooking tops with a downdraft fan that 
cannot be de-energized can or should be tested under appendix I1.

Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by May 19, 
2023, comments and information regarding this petition.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will 
see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence 
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
Faxes will not be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, 
and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' with the 
information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents 
via email. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
its process for considering rulemaking petitions. DOE actively 
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the 
comment period. Interactions with and between members of the public 
provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in 
determining how to proceed with a petition. Anyone who wishes to be 
added to DOE mailing list to receive future notifications and 
information about this petition should contact Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or via email at 
[email protected].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 7, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting

[[Page 24135]]

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That 
document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

Petition for Amendment

    The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), on behalf 
of its member companies, respectfully petitions the Department of 
Energy (DOE or Department) to amend the Test Procedure for Conventional 
Cooking Products, Appendix I1 to Subpart B of Part 430 (Appendix I).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note that this test procedure was finalized via 
publication in the Federal Register on August 22, 2022. Department 
of Energy, Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Cooking 
Products, Final Rule; Technical Correction; Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-
TP-0023; RIN 1904-AF18 (Aug. 22, 2022) (Cooking Product Test 
Procedure Final Rule) and we incorporate this Petition into the 
record on that docket. If the Department prefers to respond to this 
Petition as a Petition to Reconsider the final rule, AHAM does not 
object. We trust the Department will determine the best regulatory 
vehicle for this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM has long supported DOE in its efforts to save energy and 
ensure a national marketplace through the Appliance Standards Program. 
Repeatable and reproducible test procedures that are representative of 
actual consumer use, but not unduly burdensome to conduct, are an 
integral part of the standards program. It is essential that mandatory 
test procedures be repeatable, reproducible, representative, and not 
unduly burdensome not just because these qualities are statutory 
requirements under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as 
amended (EPCA), but also because of their importance to the integrity 
and effectiveness of the Appliance Standards Program. That is why AHAM 
is engaging in several standards development efforts focused on 
improving the energy test procedures, including our task force--in 
which DOE participates--on cooktop energy test development.
    AHAM has long been concerned that the cooktop test procedure is too 
burdensome and is not sufficiently reproducible, thus not meeting the 
EPCA test procedure criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). With this 
petition, AHAM makes minor proposals to address primarily test burden. 
Specifically, AHAM respectfully requests that DOE amend the test 
procedure to allow for a calculation as an alternative to the simmer 
portion of the test.\3\ AHAM also has identified a couple of minor 
clarifications needed related to specialty cooking zones and, 
accordingly, requests that DOE amend Appendix I1 to: (1) exclude models 
where the cooktop cannot be measured in a representative manner; and 
(2) require that a caliper be used for the measurement of open-coil 
cooking zone diameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additionally, we ask that DOE update its enforcement 
regulations to require DOE to use both the physical simmer test and 
the alternative calculation method in assessment and enforcement 
testing before making a determination of non-compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that these changes, though minor for DOE to make, will 
make a significant difference in reducing test burden and improving the 
clarity of the test. We note that mandatory use of Appendix I1 for 
representations of energy use or energy efficiency of a conventional 
cooking top is not required until on or after February 20, 2023. 
Additionally, to date, there are no applicable energy conservation 
standards for cooktops, which means that this test procedure is not 
used to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards. DOE should, 
however, quickly make the amendments AHAM proposes in light of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed ENERGY STAR criteria and to 
allow the alternative method and additional clarity on other provisions 
to be used to assess DOE's recently proposed standards.

I. Background

    On August 18, 2020, in response to a petition AHAM submitted, DOE 
published a final rule withdrawing the test procedure for conventional 
cooktops.\4\ AHAM's petition argued that the gas test procedure was not 
representative and that, for both gas and electric cooktops, had such a 
high degree of variation that it did not produce accurate results. AHAM 
also argued that the test procedure was unduly burdensome to conduct. 
DOE withdrew the test procedure because test data on the record 
demonstrated that the test procedure for cooktops yielded inconsistent 
results. DOE determined that the inconsistency in results showed the 
results to be unreliable that it was unduly burdensome to leave that 
test procedure in place without further study to resolve 
inconsistencies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Department of Energy, Energy Conservation Program: Test 
Procedures for Cooking Products; Final Rule; 85 FR 50757 (Aug. 18, 
2020).
    \5\ Id. at 50760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address issues raised in our petition, AHAM convened a Task 
Force to author updated industry standards AHAM ECT-1 and GCT-1. The 
Task Force began monthly meetings in April of 2021 and DOE and its 
contractor, Guidehouse, along with efficiency advocate representatives 
are participants in that effort. The Task Force's goal was (and 
remains) to develop cooktop test procedures for gas and electric 
cooktops that are repeatable, reproducible, representative, and 
accurate. AHAM's desire was to work quickly to complete this work 
together with other stakeholders and present it to DOE for 
incorporation by reference as the new DOE test procedure.
    On November 4, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(November 2021 NOPR) in which DOE proposed to re-establish a 
conventional cooking top test procedure. See 86 FR 60974. DOE proposed 
to adopt, with significant modifications, the latest version of the 
relevant consensus standard published by the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Standard 60350-2 (Edition 2.0 2017-
08), ``Household electric cooking appliances--Part 2: Hobs--Methods for 
measuring performance'' (IEC 60350-2:2017). The modifications included 
adapting the test method to gas cooking tops, offering an optional 
method for burden reduction, normalizing the energy use of each test 
cycle, adding measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use, 
altering certain test conditions such as starting water temperature, 
and adding specificity to certain provisions. Id.
    The November 2021 NOPR also presented the results of an initial 
round robin test program initiated in January 2020 (2020 Round Robin). 
The purpose of the 2020 Round Robin was to investigate further the IEC 
water heating approach and the concerns AHAM raised in its petition 
that led to the withdrawal of the prior test procedure. Id. at 60979-
80. The comment period for the November 2021 NOPR was initially set to 
close on January 3, 2022. DOE, however, published a notice of

[[Page 24136]]

data availability on December 16, 2021 (December 2021 NODA), in which 
DOE announced that it had published the results of a second round robin 
test program initiated in May 2021 (2021 Round Robin) and extended the 
comment period for the November 2021 NOPR until January 18, 2022. See 
86 FR 71406.
    AHAM submitted comments in response to the November 2021 NOPR and 
December 2021 NODA stating DOE had not yet provided sufficient support 
for its proposed test procedure to demonstrate that it meets the 
statutory requirements for a mandatory test procedure. AHAM argued that 
the burden, repeatability, and reproducibility issues were still so 
significant that the proposed test procedure threatened the integrity 
of the Appliance Standards Program. And AHAM's research continued to 
show that the test procedure DOE proposed, though DOE attempted to 
improve it, may not be representative for some cooktops (especially 
gas). Moreover, AHAM pointed out that DOE's process to develop the 
proposed test procedure was fraught with the same problems that plagued 
the last version of the test, which DOE ended up withdrawing. AHAM also 
highlighted its continued concerns with lack of transparency in the 
process used to develop this test procedure, and argued that DOE's 
proposed rule was not adequately supported by data (despite the fact 
that AHAM--with DOE's knowledge--was actively working on obtaining data 
that would be highly relevant to the development of a cooktop test 
procedure).
    On March 16, 2022, per a request from AHAM, DOE published full test 
data that was previously presented only in summary form in the December 
2021 NODA. DOE indicated that it published this data in response to 
AHAM's request to provide its full, raw data on the record for 
stakeholder review, and indicated it did so only after receiving 
permission from applicable stakeholders to publish their data in the 
docket. On August 22, 2022, DOE adopted its proposed rule as a new 
final test procedure, 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I1.
    In parallel to this rulemaking activity, AHAM's cooktop test 
procedure task force was working to address the issues AHAM previously 
identified with the test procedure. In fact, AHAM's task force 
continues to work. DOE, its consultant (Guidehouse), and efficiency 
advocates were, and continue to be, participants in this effort. From 
August 2021 to November 2022 AHAM completed two sets of testing at (1) 
third-party test laboratories; and (2) manufacturer test laboratories. 
The test results support AHAM's arguments that DOE's test procedure is 
not sufficiently reproducible and is overly burdensome to conduct.
    Based on our extensive testing, AHAM continues to believe that--
though some portions of the final test procedure are an improvement on 
the proposed test procedure--the test continues to be unduly 
burdensome. Our concerns about reproducibility have also not been fully 
addressed and, thus, we continue to have concerns about the test's 
accuracy as well. We recognize, however, that the Department is under 
significant political pressure and is unlikely to take the time needed 
to fully investigate and resolve those issues. As a result, AHAM is 
submitting this Petition targeting key areas in which we believe the 
test procedure can be improved to significantly decrease test burden 
without negatively impacting the test's accuracy or representativeness. 
These changes are not time-consuming to introduce and, especially 
because there is not yet an applicable standard, we request that the 
Department expeditiously consider and grant this Petition. It is 
critical that changes be made before mandatory use of the test 
procedure is required and before a second draft (and final version of) 
an ENERGY STAR specification. Thus, while DOE is reviewing these 
changes, we ask that DOE stay the effectiveness of any mandatory use of 
the test procedure with regard to representations and/or standards/
ENERGY STAR compliance.

II. The Cooktop Test Procedure Is Unduly Burdensome To Conduct

    DOE's final rule estimated a third-party test laboratory cost of 
$4,100 to conduct the test procedure for a single cooking top, and an 
estimated 23.6 hours of technician time if the test were conducted in-
house. AHAM data, however, demonstrates that this is a significant 
underestimate.
    DOE must acknowledge that cooking tops are an attended product 
(i.e., for safety reasons and due to the nature of the test, they 
cannot be left unattended by the test technician) and, thus, are 
inherently more burdensome to test than many other presently regulated 
appliances. Even were the test time to be equivalent in the number of 
hours to other test procedures, qualitatively, the test is more 
burdensome because those hours require active technician time. 
According to aggregated manufacturer estimates, 70 to 75 percent of the 
current test requires technician interaction. This cannot be automated 
or monitored electronically as can be done for unattended appliances, 
like a refrigerator for example.
    To get a detailed look at the test burden, AHAM collected member 
data on active hours (i.e., those that require the test technician to 
actively conduct the test and/or attend the appliance during the test) 
and total hours to conduct the test (i.e., the active hours plus the 
test hours during which the appliance need not be attended). Table 1 
below identifies the activities included in ``active'' hours versus 
non-active hours.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Included in active hours             Excluded in active hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring temperatures................  Cool down period of unit.
Adjusting controls.....................  Waiting for starting water
                                          temperature or ambient
                                          temperature to fall within
                                          specifications.
Selecting and placing cookware.........  Instances where getting to the
                                          turndown temperature takes a
                                          long time and the technician
                                          steps away or multi-tasks.
Determination of turndown temperature/
 simmer setting.
Unit setup and teardown................
Review of water temperature data to
 determine the type of test: Energy
 Test Cycle (ETC), Minimum Above
 Threshold (MAT), or Maximum Below
 Threshold (MBT).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 24137]]

    AHAM data shows the average active hours for testing a 4-zone 
electric cooking top to be 37.4 hours, and the average active hours for 
testing a 5-zone gas cooking top to be 43.6 hours. Members estimated a 
total test time of 49.9 hours for a 4-zone electric cooking top and 
57.8 hours for a 5-zone gas cooking top. This far exceeds DOE estimates 
with active hours alone being 58 percent and 85 percent more time, 
respectively. While the manufacturer estimates may include a small 
learning curve, AHAM data should not be discounted for this reason. 
Learning and training on this more involved test is part of the burden 
and will happen every time a new technician executes this test method. 
And the consideration of active test hours is an important one because 
it means that the technician is not as available to do other things 
during the test as s/he would be for an unattended appliance and a test 
that requires less technician interaction and monitoring.
    In regards to (third-party) testing costs per single cooking top, 
AHAM data shows a cost 1.9 to 2.6 times more than DOE's estimate 
(approximately $7,900 to $10,800).

III. To Reduce Test Burden, DOE Should Permit a Simmer Calculation 
Option in the Test Procedure

    Because of the challenges associated with conducting the simmer 
portion of Appendix I1 such as finding the correct simmer settings for 
each cooking zone, the simmer portion of the test adds unnecessary 
procedural steps resulting in significant test burden without adding 
meaningfully to differentiating the energy efficiency of individual 
units.
    To determine if a less burdensome approach is possible, AHAM 
conducted investigative testing on 18 cooking tops from ten different 
manufacturers using third party testing laboratories and testing per 
Appendix I1 as written. In addition, AHAM collected internal test data 
from three different manufacturers who conducted their own in-house 
testing, also using Appendix I1 as written. Using this data, AHAM 
developed a simmer calculation for each type of cooking top (electric 
coil, electric radiant, induction and gas) that is accurate and 
reliable and with this Petition we are asking DOE tom include it as an 
alternative in Appendix I1.
    The calculation would require that each cooking zone be tested at 
the maximum setting until water reaches 90 [deg]C. The energy 
consumption to reach 90 [deg]C is then entered into the relevant simmer 
calculation for a final result that includes the simulated energy 
consumed during a physical simmer test. Major steps of a test using the 
simmer calculation are summarized in the graphic below:
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP23.003

    This allows the test result for each model to maintain the same 
consumer representativeness of the full physical test. Given the 
limited technology options available for increasing efficiency for any 
of these product types, it is unlikely that these calculations will 
change significantly in the coming years. And even if changes are 
needed, manufacturers could seek guidance or waivers as needed.

                                 Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Cooking top product type             Proposed simmer equation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Coil..........................  E = 1.43E90-0.02P-4.74.
Electric Radiant.......................  E = 1.31E90-9.02.
Induction..............................  E = 1.47E90-4.63.
Gas....................................  E = 1.16E90 + 488.12.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The below chart shows the r-squared value by product type for each 
simmer calculation equation. As these values indicate, the alternative 
calculations AHAM proposes are highly correlated to the tested values 
and are, thus excellent approximations of conducting the physical test. 
Thus, DOE should include

[[Page 24138]]

these equations as options in the test procedure.

                                 Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Simmer calculation equation
         Cooking top product type                  R-squared value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Coil.............................                0.9893 (98.9%)
Electric Radiant..........................                0.9988 (99.9%)
Induction.................................                0.9964 (99.6%)
Gas.......................................                0.9744 (97.4%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Graphic representations of simmer calculations, and the data points 
that are used to create the calculations, are shown below to visually 
show the high degree of correlation between tested values and 
calculated values. (A coil plot is not shown because it is a multi-
variable equation).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP23.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP23.005


[[Page 24139]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19AP23.006

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    AHAM believes each product-type's simmer calculation equation will 
get stronger with the inclusion of DOE's round robin dataset (improving 
the R-squared values further). To make these calculations stronger 
(based on more data points), DOE should release the raw, second-by-
second, data of its own testing. AHAM has repeatedly requested that 
data both as part of its task force work with DOE and on the record,\6\ 
but DOE has yet to provide it. Including that data will serve to 
improve the alternative calculations making them even more accurate. In 
the interest of improving accuracy even further, AHAM will provide our 
raw data confidentially to Guidehouse instead. All data used in 
developing the simmer calculations will be included. We hope this will 
allow Guidehouse to update the equations we propose based on a larger 
data set given that we have not been able to do so without DOE's data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See AHAM Supplemental Comments on DOE's Energy Conservation 
Program: Test Procedures for Cooking Products; Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Notification of Data Availability; Docket No. EERE-
2021-BT-TP-0023; RIN 1904-AF18 (July 19, 2022), available at 
www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the high correlation between the simmer calculation and the 
simmer test, AHAM requests that DOE amend the cooking top test 
procedure to allow manufacturers to use the simmer calculation as a 
replacement for the simmer portion of the test procedure. This would 
allow manufacturers to conduct a simmer calculation or a physical 
simmer test.
    AHAM strongly urges DOE to amend the test procedure to include this 
alternate calculation method because it will significantly reduce test 
burden for manufacturers. If DOE believes that the proposed alternative 
calculation method's variation is too high, AHAM submits that the 
calculation is well correlated to the test results and thus, if the 
calculation variation is too significant, so too is the tested 
variation. The calculation method allows equivalence in variation, but 
with lower test burden. Table 4 identifies each part of the DOE test 
procedure that was conducted during active mode AHAM Location 2 
investigative testing.

                                                     Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Number of times       Number of times
                  Unit                           Part of test         conducted-- full DOE    conducted--simmer
                                                                              test               calculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.......................................  Pre-selection.............                    16                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     4                     0
                                          Energy test...............                     8                     4
C.......................................  Pre-selection.............                    30                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     4                     0
                                          Energy test...............                     6                     4
D.......................................  Pre-selection.............                    19                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     4                     0
                                          Energy test...............                     8                     4
G.......................................  Pre-selection.............                    21                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     5                     0
                                          Energy test...............                     9                     5
K.......................................  Pre-selection.............                    13                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     4                     0
                                          Energy test...............                     8                     4
M.......................................  Burner rating.............                     4                     4
                                          Pre-selection.............                    14                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     4                     0

[[Page 24140]]

 
                                          Energy test...............                     8                     4
N.......................................  Burner rating.............                     5                     5
                                          Pre-selection.............                    28                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     5                     0
                                          Energy test...............                    10                     5
O.......................................  Burner rating.............                     4                     4
                                          Pre-selection.............                    15                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     4                     0
                                          Energy test...............                     8                     4
P.......................................  Burner rating.............                     4                     4
                                          Pre-selection.............                    13                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     4                     0
                                          Energy test...............                     8                     4
R.......................................  Burner rating.............                     4                     4
                                          Pre-selection.............                    12                     0
                                          Overshoot.................                     8                     0
                                          Energy test...............                     8                     4
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ..........................                   329                    63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total number of test parts would be reduced by 81 percent if a 
simmer calculation is used.
    Importantly, the simmer calculation meets DOE's criteria as 
described in the final rule. DOE stated that in order to ensure that 
the test method is representative of consumer usage, any alternative 
method would need to provide an estimated energy consumption specific 
to the conventional cooking top model under test, rather than yielding 
an approximate value by means of a generic approach that applies 
equally for all models. Any such alternative method would need to 
produce equivalent estimated energy consumption results and associated 
product rankings as the physical test procedure established in Appendix 
I1.\7\ DOE's criteria for a simmer calculation and the manner in which 
AHAM's proposal meet them are as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Cooking Product Test Procedure Final Rule at 51530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Produce equivalent product rankings.
    We note that, in order to evaluate equivalent product rankings 
between the proposed alternative calculation method and the full 
physical test, there must be consistent product rankings for the full 
physical tests. The full physical test procedure does not produce 
consistent product rankings. For example, the same gas units rank 
differently when tested at different labs.

                 Table 5--Integrated Annual Energy Consumption (EIAEC) Reproducibility--Measured
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Rank                            Rank
                                      Type          Location 1      (electric,      Location 2      (electric,
                                                                       gas)                            gas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit M........................  Gas.............          1473.7               4          1443.3               3
Unit N (avg)..................  Gas.............          1397.2               2          1385.4               2
Unit O........................  Gas.............          1471.4               3          1465.6               4
Unit P........................  Gas.............          1603.8               6          1531.5               5
Unit Q (avg)..................  Gas.............          1345.3               1          1330.3               1
Unit R........................  Gas.............          1522.5               5          1535.8               6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the full test, including simmer, produces inconsistent 
product rankings, it is not reasonable to expect consistency, nor does 
it make sense to require the alternative calculation to be equally 
inconsistent.
    2. Be based on test data from multiple labs.
    The simmer equations AHAM proposes in this Petition are based on 
testing a two third-party laboratories and three manufacturer 
laboratories.
    3. Be representative of tested simmering period on multiple types 
of products.
    The simmer equations AHAM proposes in this Petition are based on a 
number of models using different technologies including coil, radiant, 
induction, and gas heating elements.
    AHAM proposes that a unique equation be established for each 
surface cooking type based on the underlying physics--i.e., stored 
energy within the elements, speed of heating the water resulting in 
heat lost to the environment, and thermal coupling between the pot and 
surface cooking type.

                                 Table 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Models used in
                          Type                              developing
                                                            calculation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coil....................................................               5
Radiant.................................................               6
Induction...............................................               5
Gas.....................................................              19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Include data from products that cover a wide range of available 
surface cooking types.
    It is unclear what technology options DOE is looking to capture, 
but due to the high number of manufacturers that

[[Page 24141]]

submitted units or data, we are confident that a range of designs are 
considered within the calculation.

                                                     Table 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturers
                                               represented     Range of rated cooking zone  power for units in
                    Type                      in developing              AHAM  investigative testing
                                               calculation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coil.......................................               3  675-2,600 W.
Radiant....................................               5  1,200-3,300 W.
Induction..................................               5  1,400-3,600 W.
Gas........................................               7  5,000-19,500 Btu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Produce equivalent energy consumption results when compared to 
the results produced by the full test.
    The difference between physical test results and calculated results 
using the equations AHAM proposes in this Petition is small. As an 
example, the below table evaluates fully tested versus calculated 
results at one of the third-party testing locations in AHAM's testing. 
The average difference was only about one percent, which is 
insignificant, particularly when compared to the variation in the full 
test. Table 8 below demonstrates this point.

        Table 8--Percent Difference EIAEC--Measured vs. Predicted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Type          Location 1 (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit B (avg)......................  Coil................             3.3
Unit C............................  Coil................             0.3
Unit D............................  Radiant.............             0.0
Unit G............................  Radiant.............            -1.3
Unit K............................  Induction...........             1.7
Unit M............................  Gas.................             0.0
Unit N............................  Gas.................            -4.7
Unit O............................  Gas.................            -1.3
Unit P............................  Gas.................            -3.7
Unit Q............................  Gas.................            -2.5
Unit R............................  Gas.................            -3.9
Average...........................  ....................            -1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Capture differences between simmer strategies.
    Based on discussions with Guidehouse during our task force efforts, 
AHAM understands ``simmer strategies'' to mean some combination of 
control type, power levels, power steps, and safety features that a 
model uses to set, control and maintain power levels. Twelve electric 
samples were tested at third-party labs; this data was used in 
developing the simmer equations. Of those samples, AHAM has confirmed 
that five use an infinite switch control and four use a software-based 
control. For gas units, see points three and four above showing the 
large number of models and manufacturers considered. (Note that 
information on controls was not provided for all units in AHAM's 
sample.)
    As a supplement to this petition, we are confidentially submitting 
to Guidehouse raw test data that supports our arguments in this 
Petition and supports DOE amending Appendix I1 to include an 
alternative simmer calculation.
    Additionally, AHAM requests that DOE add enforcement provisions 
that require DOE to use both simmer methods (the calculation and 
physical test) before making a finding of non-compliance with energy 
conservation standards (and ideally, before proceeding beyond 
assessment testing). A similar enforcement strategy is already in place 
for refrigerators.\8\ DOE identifies compliance by using a calculation, 
but can also audit by testing the unit using the test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 10 CFR 429.134(b)(2) (``The test described in section 
5.2(b) of the applicable test procedure for refrigerators or 
refrigerator-freezers in appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 
shall be used for all units of a basic model before DOE makes a 
determination of noncompliance with respect to the basic model.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. AHAM Proposes Two Minor Clarifications

    Separate from our proposal to permit a calculation alternative to 
the simmer portion of the test procedure, AHAM also proposes additional 
minor changes to improve the clarity of the test procedure and we ask 
that DOE make these changes before the test procedure becomes mandatory 
to demonstrate compliance with standards/ENERGY STAR specifications, 
prior to required use of the test procedure to support energy related 
representations. It would also be helpful to have these improvements 
made in time to allow use of them in assessing amended standards.

A. Definition of Specialty Cooking Zones

    The test procedure excludes specialty cooking zones. In the final 
rule, DOE noted that ``. . . a cooking zone designed for use only with 
non-circular cookware would not be expected to be used with any 
regularity, such that measuring its energy use would not be 
representative of the energy use of a cooking top during a 
representative average consumer use cycle . . .'' \9\ The final rule 
also states, ``. . . a heating element on an electric cooking top with 
a diameter smaller than 100 mm (3.9 inches) would likely not be able to 
heat

[[Page 24142]]

water to 90 [deg]C. As such, it would likely be excluded from testing 
because it would be a specialty cooking zone (e.g., a warming plate or 
zone).'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Cooktop Test Procedure Final Rule at 51522.
    \10\ Id. at 51505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test procedure excludes non-cooking top portions of combined 
products. Appendix I1 covers conventional cooking tops and conventional 
cooking top components of combined products, where a combined product 
is defined as a conventional range, a microwave/conventional cooking 
top, a microwave/conventional oven, and a microwave/conventional range. 
DOE does not require that the microwave and cooking top be tested 
together. However, DOE does not provide the same distinction for 
products which are a combination of a range hood and a conventional 
cooking top. AHAM requests that DOE be consistent and exclude models 
where it is not possible to take a representative measurement of the 
cooking top only.
    Additionally, AHAM believes that more detail is needed to achieve 
DOE's goal of excluding cooking zones which are not regularly used and 
do not match the scope of the test procedure--i.e., boiling water. 
Table 9 shows the difference between AHAM's proposal and current 
Appendix I1.

                     Table 9--Specialty Cooking Zone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Appendix I1                         AHAM proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warming Plate................  Gas cooking zones, rated 5,600 Btu/h or
                                less, intended to hold food warm.
                               Electric cooking zones, rated 350W or
                                less, intended to hold food warm.
                               Note 1: Excluding 5,600 Btu/h or less may
                                change the gas simmer equation proposed
                                in this petition. If DOE decides to
                                exclude these smaller cooking zones,
                                AHAM can assist in providing an updated
                                simmer calculation.
                               Note 2: The 350W is taken from the safety
                                standard UL 858.
Grill, griddle, or any         Cooking zones designed for use with non-
 cooking zone that is           circular cookware, such as bridge
 designed for use only with     burners, oval burners, grills, and
 non-circular cookware, such    griddles as designated in manufacturer
 as a bridge zone.              instructions.
                               Cooking zones designed for use with non-
                                flat-bottom cookware such as wok burners
                                as designated in manufacturer
                                instructions.
                               Portable appliances for cooking, grilling
                                and similar functions.
                               Cooking tops or ranges with a downdraft
                                fan that cannot be de-energized by the
                                appliance control according to
                                manufacturer instructions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Measurement of Diameter of Open Coil Heating Elements

    For electric units, DOE requires measurement of the cooking zone 
diameter to determine cookware size and water load. Furthermore, ``. . 
. DOE clarifies that open coil heating elements are to be treated as 
circular, and that the largest diameter is used . . .''
    DOE does not adequately consider the method of measurement for open 
coil heating elements. These types of elements have rounded edges. If 
measured with a ruler, the rounded edges are unaccounted for, a smaller 
diameter is measured, and smaller cookware/water load may be required. 
But if a caliper were used, that would account for rounded edges, 
measuring a larger diameter, and thus larger cookware/water load may be 
needed. Currently, the test procedure appears to permit either 
measurement tool. AHAM proposes that DOE specify which measurement tool 
should be used either in the test procedure itself or through test 
procedure guidance.
    This is a small change for DOE to make in the procedure, but it is 
an important and significant one in terms of accuracy. A small 
difference in cooking zone diameter can make a large difference in the 
final energy consumption as demonstrated by test results from UUT_B in 
AHAM's investigative testing. This unit has two cooking zones where the 
measurement method changes the water load.

                                Table 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Measurement method                  Ruler          Caliper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measured Diameter (mm)..................             188             190
Required Cookware Diameter (mm).........             180             210
Required Water Load (g).................           1,500           2,050
Energy, ECTE (Wh).......................          466.01          440.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the table above, a one percent difference in diameter 
measurement produces a 5.85 percent difference in measured energy 
consumption due to the change in required test water load.
    DOE also had this issue for the coil units in its second round 
robin.\11\ Lab A measured elements 2 and 4 at 188mm resulting in a 
180mm pot. Labs C and E measured them to be 190-191 resulting in a 
210mm pot. This resulted in a shift in annual energy from 179.2 to 
191.3, or 6.75 percent. Burner energy was 20-30 percent different due 
to a one to two percent change in diameter measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To remedy this, AHAM requests that DOE clarify 3.1.1.1.1 of the 
test procedure to require use of calipers, which provide a more 
accurate measurement than a ruler. We propose the following text: 
``Open-coil cooking zones shall be measured with calipers at the 
largest outside diameter.'' Alternatively, DOE could issue guidance to 
clarify that calipers should be used.

V. The DOE Test Procedure Continues To Be Highly Variable

    In AHAM's view, data from DOE's second round robin still shows 
unacceptable levels of variation.\12\ Taking a closer at DOE's gas 
cooking top

[[Page 24143]]

units test results, Lab A consistently measures lower than Labs B and 
C. On average, Lab A measures 7.9 percent lower than Labs B and C. This 
is shown in Table 11 and the shift in mean values between labs is shown 
in Table 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Summary of Second Round Robin Testing, testing according to 
the updated procedure proposed in the November 4, 2021 NOPR, at 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-TP-0023-0004.

                                                           Table 11--Average Annual Energy Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Certified Lab A    Certified Lab B    Certified Lab C                       Overall average
           Unit #                         Type                   (kBtu)             (kBtu)             (kBtu)             Lab E              (kBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6...........................  Gas........................                982              1,096              1,106                n/a              1,061
7...........................  Gas........................              1,313              1,428              1,339                n/a              1,360
8...........................  Gas........................              1,438              1,554              1,556                n/a              1,516
9...........................  Gas........................              1,494              1,593              1,614                n/a              1,567
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Table 12--Shift in Mean Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Lab A vs. Lab B    Lab A vs. Lab C    Lab B vs. Lab C
              Unit #                       Type                 (%)                (%)                (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6................................  Gas.................               11.9               12.5                0.6
7................................  Gas.................                7.5                1.9                5.5
8................................  Gas.................                6.4                7.0                0.5
9................................  Gas.................                7.0                8.7                1.6
Average..........................  ....................                8.2                7.5                2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Variation of this nature will have serious consequences when it 
comes to future DOE compliance and enforcement efforts. Because of the 
differences in potential test results depending on the laboratory 
conducting the test, manufacturers will need to build in a buffer or 
``safety factor'' of over ten percent on average (unit 6, Lab C vs. Lab 
A shows a 12.5 percent variation) to help ensure compliance with 
applicable standards.

  Table 13--Percentage of (Tested) Unit Meeting Compliance During Audit
                                 Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Typical allowable
                                      shift used by     Average shift in
          Margin to limit            third party labs   DOE testing (8%)
                                           (3%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent.........................               97.5               11.5
5 Percent.........................                100                 52
8 Percent.........................                100               97.5
10 Percent........................                100                100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The variation could also mean that, for example, if a manufacturer 
uses Lab B or C for certification and DOE uses Lab A for compliance and 
enforcement testing, DOE's results could be an overstated efficiency as 
the test unit(s) will have drifted away from their certified values due 
to variation in mass production. This could result in false findings of 
non-compliance. The analysis below uses DOE's round robin testing 
results and statistical simulation (as presently required under 10 CFR 
429 Subpart C) to show that this variation is so significant, units 
with as much as five percent higher energy consumption could still meet 
a future minimum energy conservation standard level and remain 
compliant when tested by DOE.

  Table 14--Percentage of (Tested) Unit Meeting Compliance During Audit
                                 Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Typical allowable
                                      shift used by     Average shift in
 Energy value above DOE threshold    third party labs   DOE testing (8%)
                                           (3%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Percent.........................                 95                100
5 Percent.........................                 76                100
8 Percent.........................                 18                 99
10 Percent........................                  1                 86
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to believe that this variation threatens the 
credibility of the Appliance Standards Program and means that the 
cooktop test procedure DOE finalized does not produce sufficiently 
accurate results. Thus, we continue to question whether the test 
procedure truly meets EPCA's criteria.
    Although AHAM does not have a proposal at this time for improving 
further the test's variation, we do believe DOE can reduce the test's 
burden so it is not overly burdensome to conduct. Specifically, AHAM 
asks that DOE simplify the test by removing the requirement to perform 
a physical simmer test and providing, as an option,

[[Page 24144]]

a calculation alternative to the simmer portion of the test.

VI. Conclusion

    Based on the above reasoning and justification, combined with the 
data AHAM will submit with this petition, AHAM respectfully requests 
that DOE amend the test procedure to:
    1. Allow for a calculation as an alternative to the simmer portion 
of the test; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Additionally, we ask that DOE update its enforcement 
regulations to require DOE to use both the physical simmer test and 
the alternative calculation method in assessment and enforcement 
testing before making a determination of non-compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Exclude models where the cooktop cannot be measured in a 
representative manner; and
    3. Require measurement of open-coil cooking zone diameter using a 
caliper.
    Although we understand that DOE is working to consider energy 
conservation standards for cooktops, we do not expect that making these 
relatively minor changes to the test procedure will impact DOE's 
ability to proceed with its other rulemaking plans. Mandatory use of 
appendix I1 for representations of energy use or energy efficiency of a 
conventional cooking top is not required until on or after February 20, 
2023. We also note that, to date, there are no applicable energy 
conservation standards for cooktops, which means that this test 
procedure is not used to demonstrate compliance with applicable 
standards. Nevertheless, we ask DOE to move quickly to make these 
changes because the date for using the test procedure for 
representations is quickly approaching and EPA is moving quickly to 
develop an ENERGY STAR specification that uses DOE's test procedure. 
Moreover, these changes will be helpful in assessing DOE's proposed 
amended energy conservation standards.
    AHAM appreciates the opportunity to submit this Petition to Amend 
the Cooktop Test Procedure and would be glad to discuss these matters 
in more detail should you so request. We respectfully request that DOE 
urgently review and act upon this petition as it is critical that 
changes be made before mandatory use of the test procedure is required. 
Thus, while DOE is reviewing these changes, we ask that DOE stay the 
effectiveness of that requirement.

    Respectfully Submitted,

Jennifer Cleary,

/s

Vice President, Regulatory Affairs.

    About AHAM: AHAM represents more than 150 member companies that 
manufacture 90% of the major, portable and floor care appliances 
shipped for sale in the U.S. Home appliances are the heart of the home, 
and AHAM members provide safe, innovative, sustainable and efficient 
products that enhance consumers' lives. The home appliance industry is 
a significant segment of the economy, measured by the contributions of 
home appliance manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers to the U.S. 
economy. In all, the industry drives nearly $200 billion in economic 
output throughout the U.S. and manufactures products with a factory 
shipment value of more than $50 billion.

[FR Doc. 2023-07673 Filed 4-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P