Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2012)

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1591-1614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-218]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 1591]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0036]
RIN 1904-AC38

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Automatic
Commercial Ice Makers

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 4, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the
Department) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the
test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers (ACIM). That NOPR
serves as the basis for today's action. This final rule amends the
current test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers. The changes
include updating the incorporation by reference of industry test
procedures to the most current published versions, expanding coverage
of the test procedure to all batch type and continuous type ice makers
with capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours,
standardizing test results based on ice hardness for continuous type
ice makers, clarifying the test methods and reporting requirements for
automatic ice makers designed to be connected to a remote compressor
rack, and discontinuing the use of a clarified energy use equation.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is February 10, 2012. The final
rule changes will be mandatory for equipment testing starting January
7, 2013. Representations either in writing or in any broadcast
advertisement respecting energy consumption of automatic commercial ice
makers must also be made using the revised DOE test procedure on
January 7, 2013.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
this final rule is approved by the Director of the Office of the
Federal Register as of February 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/automatic_ice_making_equipment.html. This Web page will contain a
link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The
regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to
access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For
further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2192. Email:
Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference
into Part 431 the following industry standards:
(1) Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)
Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1, ``Performance Rating of Automatic
Commercial Ice-Makers,'' March 2011; and
(2) American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 29-2009, ``Method of Testing Automatic Ice Makers,''
(including Errata Sheets 1 and 2, issued April 8, 2010 and April 12,
2011), approved January 28, 2009.
Copies of AHRI standards can be obtained from the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500,
Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, ahri@ahrinet.org, or http://www.ahrinet.org.
Copies of ASHRAE standards can be purchased from the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.,
1791 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, (404) 636-8400,
ashrae@ashrae.org, or http://www.ashrae.org.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Amendments to the Test Procedure
1. Update References to Industry Standards to Most Current
Versions
2. Expand Capacity Range to Larger Capacity Equipment
3. Include Test Methods for Continuous Type Ice Makers
a. Definitions and Referenced Industry Test Methods
b. Standardize Ice Hardness for Continuous Type Ice Makers
c. Ice Hardness Versus Ice Quality
d. Sub-Cooled Ice
e. Ice Hardness Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers
f. Variability of the Ice Hardness Measurement
g. Perforated Containers for Continuous Type Ice Makers
4. Clarify the Test Method and Reporting Requirements for Remote
Condensing Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
5. Discontinue Use of a Clarified Energy Rate Calculation
6. Test Procedure Compliance Date
B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comment Summary and DOE
Responses
1. Test Method for Modulating Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice
Makers
2. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines
3. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy Use
4. Measurement of Storage Bin Effectiveness
5. Establishment of a Metric for Potable Water Used to Produce
Ice
6. Standardization of Water Hardness for Measurement of Potable
Water Used in Making Ice
7. Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers at the Highest Purge Setting
8. Consideration of Space Conditioning Loads
9. Burden Due to Cost of Testing
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

[[Page 1592]]

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'') sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Part C of Title III,
which was subsequently redesignated as Part A-1 in the U.S. Code for
editorial reasons (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), establishes an energy
conservation program for certain industrial equipment. This includes
automatic commercial ice makers, the subject of today's rulemaking.
DOE's energy conservation program, established under EPCA, consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal
energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use (1) as the basis for
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA; and (2) for making
representations about the efficiency of those pieces of equipment.
Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether
the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6315(b), 6295(s), and 6316(a)) The current test procedure
for automatic commercial ice makers appears under title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart H.
EPCA prescribes that the test procedure for automatic commercial
ice makers shall be the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
(ARI) Standard 810-2003, ``Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial
Ice-Makers.'' (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(A)) EPCA also provides that if ARI
Standard 810-2003 is revised, the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) shall
amend the DOE test procedure as necessary to be consistent with the
amended ARI Standard unless the Secretary determines, by rule, that to
do so would not meet the requirements for test procedures set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(B)) Because ARI Standard 810 has been
updated from the 2003 version, DOE must amend the DOE test procedure to
reflect these updates, unless doing so would not meet the requirements
for a test procedure, as set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(7)(B)(i))
In addition, EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards for
automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice with
capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per 24-hour period. (42
U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) EPCA also requires the Secretary to review these
standards and determine, by January 1, 2015, whether amending the
applicable standards is technically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)) DOE is currently undertaking a
standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037), concurrent
with this test procedure rulemaking, to determine if amended standards
are technically feasible and economically justified for automatic
commercial ice makers covered by the standards set in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). In the energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE is also proposing, under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2), to adopt
standards for other types of ice makers that are not covered in 42
U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) and to expand the covered capacity range to ice
makers with capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. In this
final rule, DOE is amending the test procedure for automatic commercial
ice makers to be consistent with the expanded scope being considered in
the ACIM energy conservation standards rulemaking.
In addition, EPCA requires DOE to conduct an evaluation of each
class of covered equipment at least once every 7 years to determine
whether, among other things, to amend the test procedure for such
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) The review and amendment of the
test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers in this final rule
notice fulfills DOE's obligation under EPCA to evaluate the test
procedure for automatic commercial ice makers every 7 years. EPCA also
requires that if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42
U.S.C. 6314(b))

B. Background

EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, prescribes that the test procedure
for automatic commercial ice makers shall be the ARI Standard 810-2003,
``Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice-Makers.'' (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(7)(A)) Pursuant to EPCA, on December 8, 2006, DOE published a
final rule (the 2006 en masse final rule) that, among other things,
adopted the test procedure specified in ARI Standard 810-2003, with a
revised method for calculating energy use. DOE adopted a clarified
energy use rate equation to specify that the energy use be calculated
using the entire mass of ice produced during the testing period,
normalized to 100 pounds of ice produced. 71 FR 71340, 71350 (Dec. 8,
2006). The DOE test procedure also incorporated by reference the ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (Reaffirmed 2005) (ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA
2005)), ``Method of Testing Automatic Ice Makers,'' as the method of
test.
Since the publication of the 2006 en masse final rule, ARI merged
with the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) to form the
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) and
updated its ice maker test procedure to reflect changes in the
industry. The new test procedure, AHRI Standard 810-2007, amends the
previous test procedure, ARI Standard 810-2003, to:
1. Expand the capacity range of covered equipment to between 50 and
4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours at standard rating conditions;
2. Provide definitions and specific test procedures for batch type
and continuous type ice makers; and
3. Provide a definition for ice hardness factor, which is the
fraction of frozen ice in the ice product of continuous type ice
machines.
The industry test procedure being considered in this rulemaking,
AHRI Standard 810-2007, references the previous ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
29-1988 (RA 2005). The current DOE test procedure also references ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005). However, ASHRAE updated its test
procedure in 2009 to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 to include provisions
for measuring the performance of batch type and continuous type ice
makers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ASHRAE has also issued two errata sheets to ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 29-2009, issued April 8, 2010 and April 12, 2010,
respectively. These errata serve only to clarify equations that are
part of the ice hardness calculation described in normative annex A,
Table A1; they do not change the content or results of the test
procedure. In this document, all subsequent references to ``ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 29-2009'' will refer to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-
2009, including all errata presented in Errata Sheets 1 and 2.

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

[[Page 1593]]

In March 2011, AHRI published an addendum to AHRI Standard 810-
2007, AHRI Standard 810 with Addendum 1. This addendum revised the
definition of ``potable water use rate'' and added new definitions of
``purge or dump water'' and ``harvest water'' that more accurately
describe the water consumption of automatic commercial ice makers. This
change only affects measurement of the potable water use of automatic
commercial ice makers. Because the amended DOE test procedure adopted
in this final rule does not require the measurement of potable water,
this change does not impact the DOE test procedure for automatic
commercial ice makers.
EPCA requires that if DOE determines that a test procedure
amendment is warranted, DOE must publish proposed test procedures and
offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on
them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) In accordance with this requirement, DOE
published the proposed test procedure amendments in the ACIM test
procedure NOPR, which was published in the Federal Register on April 4,
2011. 76 FR 18428 (April 2011 NOPR). On April 29, 2011, DOE held a
public meeting (April 2011 NOPR public meeting) to discuss the
amendments proposed in the April 2011 NOPR and provide an opportunity
for interested parties to comment. DOE also received written comments
from interested parties regarding the proposed amendments to the test
procedure for automatic commercial ice makers and has considered both
the oral comments received at the public meeting and the written
comments, to the extent possible, when finalizing this final rule.
These comments and DOE's responses are presented in section III,
Discussion.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

This final rule amends the existing test procedure for automatic
commercial ice makers. Specifically, DOE is incorporating revisions to
the DOE test procedure that:
1. Update the industry test procedure references to AHRI Standard
810-2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009;
2. Expand the scope of the test procedure to include equipment with
capacities from 50 to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours;
3. Provide test methods for continuous type ice makers and
standardize the measurement of energy and water use for continuous type
ice makers with respect to ice hardness;
4. Clarify the test method and reporting requirements for remote
condensing automatic commercial ice makers designed for connection to
remote compressor racks; and
5. Discontinue the use of a clarified energy use rate calculation
and instead calculate energy use per 100 pounds of ice as specified in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009.
These amendments make changes to the definitions set forth in 10
CFR 431.132 and to the current test procedures in 10 CFR 431.134.
The amended test procedure established in today's final rule will
become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. DOE
believes the test procedure amendments adopted in today's final rule
will not alter the measured energy consumption and condenser water
consumption of any covered equipment. As such, for automatic commercial
ice makers for which energy conservation standards were set in EPACT
2005, use of the revised test procedure for showing compliance with
DOE's energy conservation standards will be required starting 360 days
after publication in the Federal Register. For equipment not covered by
the standards set forth in EPACT 2005, use of the amended test
procedure to show compliance with energy conservation standards will be
required on the compliance date of any energy conservation standards
established for that equipment. Consistent with EPCA, representations
either in writing or in any broadcast advertisement respecting energy
consumption of any automatic commercial ice makers covered under this
test procedure final rule will be required to be made based on the
amended test procedure starting 360 days after publication of this
final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) For more
specific information on DOE's conclusion that the amended test
procedure will not affect the measured energy or water consumption of
covered equipment and further discussion of compliance dates, see the
DATES section and section III.A.6 of this document.

III. Discussion

Section III.A discusses all the revisions to the test procedure
incorporated in this final rule and discusses the test procedure
compliance date. This section also presents the comments received on
these topics during the April 2011 NOPR public meeting and in the
associated comment period and DOE's responses to them.
Responses to comments addressing topics other than test procedure
revisions adopted in this final rule appear in section III.B, which
provides responses to comments in the following subject areas:

1. Test Method for Modulating Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
2. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines
3. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy Use
4. Measurement of Storage Bin Effectiveness
5. Establishment of a Metric for Potable Water Used in Making Ice
6. Standardization of Water Hardness for Measurement of Potable Water
Used in Making Ice
7. Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers at the Highest Purge Setting
8. Consideration of Space Conditioning Loads
9. Burden Due to Cost of Testing

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure

Today's final rule contains the following amendments to the test
procedure in 10 CFR 431, subpart H.
1. Update References to Industry Standards to Most Current Versions
The current DOE test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers,
established in the 2006 en masse final rule, adopts ARI Standard 810-
2003 as the test procedure used to measure the energy consumption of a
piece of equipment to establish compliance with energy conservation
standards set in EPACT 2005. 71 FR at 71350 (Dec. 8, 2006). The DOE
test procedure also references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005).
Since publication of the 2006 en masse final rule, AHRI and ASHRAE
have published revised standards, namely AHRI Standard 810-2007 with
Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 (including Errata Sheets 1
and 2). AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
29-2009 amend the previous test procedures by expanding the capacity
range to 4,000 pounds per day and providing for the testing of
continuous type ice makers. AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 and
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 are designed to be used together to test
automatic commercial ice makers. AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1
specifies the standard rating conditions and provides relevant
definitions of equipment, scope, and calculated or measured values.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29 specifies how to conduct the test procedure,
including the technical requirements and calculations.

[[Page 1594]]

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt AHRI Standard 810-
2007 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 as the DOE test procedure. 76 FR
at 18431 (April 4, 2011). AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 was
not published in time for DOE to include it in the NOPR. At the April
2011 NOPR public meeting and in subsequent written comments, AHRI,
Manitowoc Ice (Manitowoc), Scotsman Industries (Scotsman), Follett
Corporation (Follett), and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
(NEEA) supported this proposal (AHRI, No. 0005 at p. 23; Manitowoc, No.
0009 at p. 1; Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 1; Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1;
NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 2) \2\ Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California
Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Gas
Company, hereafter referred to as the California Investor Owned
Utilities (CA IOUs), submitted a joint comment that also supported
adopting AHRI Standard 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. (CA IOUs,
No. 0011 at pp. 1-2) AHRI also recommended that DOE adopt AHRI standard
810-2007 with Addendum 1, pointing out that the addendum was added in
March 2011 and has new definitions for ``dump and purge water'' and
``harvest water.'' AHRI added that the addendum also clarifies how
potable water usage rate is calculated. (AHRI, No. 0015 at p. 1) DOE
did not receive any dissenting comments generally regarding reference
to the updated industry standards, nor regarding AHRI Standard 810-2007
with Addendum 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ In the following discussion, comments will be presented
along with a notation in the form ``AHRI, No. 0005 at p. 23,'' which
identifies a written comment DOE received and included in the docket
of this rulemaking. DOE refers to comments based on when the comment
was submitted in the rulemaking process. This particular notation
refers to a comment (1) By AHRI, (2) in document number 0005 of the
docket (available at regulations.gov), and (3) appearing on page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE reviewed AHRI 810-2007 with Addendum 1 and determined that this
revised version of the AHRI Standard 810-2007 test procedure meets the
EPCA requirements for a test procedure in that it is reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect the energy use of covered
equipment during a representative cycle of use and is not unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
DOE believes AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 29-2009 are the most up-to-date and commonly used test
procedures for automatic commercial ice makers in the industry and are
the most appropriate to cover all equipment included in the scope of
this rulemaking. Thus, in today's final rule, DOE is updating the DOE
test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers to reference the
most current versions of the industry test procedures, AHRI Standard
810-2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009.
2. Expand Capacity Range to Larger Capacity Equipment
DOE's existing test procedure references ARI Standard 810-2003,
which limits the testing provisions to a capacity range of 50 to 2,500
pounds of ice per 24 hours. In AHRI Standard 810-2007, AHRI expanded
the capacity range to include automatic commercial ice makers having a
harvest capacity between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours at
standard rating conditions due to changes in the products offered by
manufacturers. Specifically, some manufacturers offer larger capacity
units that exceed the capacity range of the previous test procedure.
AHRI's expansion of the capacity range does not affect the way ice
makers are tested; it only provides for the same test procedure to be
applied to larger capacity ice makers.
Consistent with referenced industry test procedures, DOE proposed
in the April 2011 NOPR to expand the capacity range of the DOE test
procedure to include automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates
between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. 76 FR at 18431 (April
4, 2011). In response to this proposal, Manitowoc, AHRI, Follett,
Scotsman, the CA IOUs, and NEEA commented that 50 to 4,000 pounds per
day was an appropriate capacity range for this equipment. (Manitowoc,
No. 0009 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 0005; Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1; Scotsman,
No. 0010 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 0011 at pp. 1-2; NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 1)
Manitowoc further commented that there are some industrial applications
of ice makers, at airports or other venues with very high ice
consumption, but that larger capacity industrial-scale equipment was
already inherently more efficient. (Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 26) NEEA
commented that it is inclined to agree that equipment with capacities
greater than 4,000 pounds of ice per day need not be included in the
scope of coverage because, while these types of machines can probably
be rated using the test procedure, environmental chamber issues would
impose a potentially significant burden on manufacturers who are not so
equipped. NEEA also agreed with Manitowoc that machines of capacities
greater than 4,000 pounds per day are inherently at least a little more
energy efficient per pound of ice produced than similar smaller
machines. (NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 1-2) AHRI added that ice makers
producing more than 4000 pounds of ice per 24 hours are usually used in
industrial applications that are outside the scope of this rulemaking,
as justified by the EPACT 2005, which gives DOE the authority to
develop energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice
makers only. (AHRI, No. 0015 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with commenters that 4,000 pounds of ice produced per a
24 hour period is a reasonable maximum capacity limit for automatic
commercial ice makers. Consequently, DOE is establishing in this final
rule the applicable capacity range of the test procedure for automatic
commercial ice makers as the same capacity range established in AHRI
810-2007 with Addendum 1, namely 50 to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24
hours.
3. Include Test Methods for Continuous Type Ice Makers
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE proposed including test methods as
defined in AHRI Standard 810-2007 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 for
continuous type ice makers, as well as an additional method to scale
their energy consumption and water consumption with respect to the
latent heat capacity contained in the ice compared to the latent heat
capacity of the same mass of completely frozen ice. 76 FR at 18432
(April 4, 2011). The following sections discuss DOE's specific
proposals, comments submitted by interested parties on these proposals,
DOE's responses, and the amendments DOE is adopting in today's final
rule.
a. Definitions and Referenced Industry Test Methods
AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-
2009 have provisions that allow for the testing of continuous type ice
makers. The previous versions of these standards, ARI Standard 810-2003
and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005), as referenced in the
current DOE test procedure, do not include a method for testing
continuous type ice makers. The revised ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009
adopts definitions for a ``continuous type ice maker'' and a ``batch
type ice maker.'' A continuous type ice maker is defined as an ice
maker that continually freezes and harvests ice at the same time.
Continuous type ice makers primarily produce flake and nugget ice. A
batch type ice maker is defined as an ice maker that has alternate
freezing and harvesting periods, including machines

[[Page 1595]]

that produce cube type ice, tube type ice, and fragmented ice. AHRI
Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 adopts the same definition for a
continuous type ice maker, but refers to ice makers that have alternate
freezing and harvesting periods as ``cube type ice makers.'' The AHRI
Standard 810-2007 definition further clarifies that in this definition
the word ``cube'' does not refer to the specific shape or size of ice
produced. Because of this, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 includes the
statement that batch type ice makers are also referred to as cube type
ice makers.
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE proposed to refer to an ice maker with
alternate freezing and harvesting periods as a ``batch type ice
maker,'' so that it is not confused with an ice maker that produces
only cube type ice. DOE believes that referring to this type of ice
maker as a ``cube type ice maker'' could be confusing, since not all
batch type ice makers produce ice that fits the ``cube type ice''
definition established in the 2006 en masse final rule. 71 FR at 71372
(Dec. 8, 2006). Rather, batch type ice makers include, but are not
limited to, cube type ice makers. DOE wishes to establish this
differentiation because ice makers that produce cube type ice with
capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per 24 hours are
currently covered by energy conservation standards that are established
in EPCA, while batch type ice makers that produce other than cube type
ice and cube type ice makers with capacities between 2,500 and 4,000
pounds of ice per 24 hours are not currently covered by DOE energy
conservation standards. In the April 2011 NOPR (76 FR at 18444 (April
4, 2011)), DOE proposed adding definitions to 10 CFR 431.132 for
``batch type ice maker,'' which would refer to ice makers that
alternate freezing and harvesting periods, and ``continuous type ice
maker, '' which would refer to ice makers that continuously freeze and
harvest at the same time.
In addition to these definitions, DOE proposed to adopt AHRI
Standard 810-2007 as the referenced DOE test procedure, including
referencing ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 as the method of test. 76 FR
at 18432 (April 4, 2011). This would expand the current DOE test
procedure to provide a method for testing continuous type ice makers,
in addition to batch type ice makers.
At the April 2011 NOPR public meeting and in written comments, both
energy efficiency advocates and manufacturers agreed that continuous
type ice makers should be included in the standards. (Follett, No. 0008
at p. 1; Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 1; Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 1; CA
IOUs, No. 0011 at pp. 1-2; NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 1) The CA IOUs and
Manitowoc added that the coverage of continuous type equipment is
important because continuous type machines represent up to 20 percent
of the total market based on energy use today and continue to grow in
market share; thus, establishing a test procedure in this rulemaking
and corresponding energy conservation standards for these equipment
types would ensure that significant energy savings are captured. (CA
IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 2; Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 1)
DOE agrees with commenters that it is logical and appropriate to
include test procedures for continuous type ice makers in this test
procedure revision. In today's final rule, DOE is adopting definitions
and test procedures for batch type and continuous type ice makers. The
test procedure for testing continuous type ice makers will be used in
conjunction with any potential energy conservation standards for
automatic commercial ice makers that produce flake or nugget ice.
To remove any uncertainty regarding the current applicability of
standards for ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities
between 50 and 2,500 pounds per 24 hours, DOE is slightly modifying the
proposed definition for batch type ice makers, as well as adding
language to the definition for cube type ice and scope in the final
rule. Specifically, DOE is removing the clarification of AHRI's
definition of cube type ice maker in the definition of batch type ice
maker, specifying that where there is inconsistency between AHRI and
DOE's definitions of cube type ice, the DOE definition takes
precedence, and noting that all references to cube type ice makers in
AHRI Standard 810-2007 shall apply to all batch type automatic
commercial ice makers only. DOE believes this removes, to the extent
possible, any potential ambiguity regarding the nomenclature and
coverage of batch type ice makers that produce cube type ice and batch
type ice makers that produce other than cube type ice (such as
fragmented ice makers) in the DOE test procedure. DOE is also updating
the definition for continuous type ice makers to be consistent with
that adopted in AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 29-2009.
b. Standardize Ice Hardness for Continuous Type Ice Makers
Continuous type ice makers typically produce ice that is not
completely frozen. This means that there is some liquid water content
in the total mass of ice product produced by continuous type ice
makers. The specific liquid water content can be described in terms of
ice hardness or ice quality and is usually quantified in terms of
percent of completely frozen ice in the total ice product. Ice quality
can vary significantly across different continuous ice makers, from
less than 70 percent to more than 100 percent. DOE understands that the
percentage of liquid water in the product of continuous ice makers is
directly related to the measured energy consumption of these machines,
since more refrigeration is required to freeze a greater percentage of
the ice product.
To provide comparability and repeatability of results, in the April
2011 NOPR, DOE proposed to standardize the energy consumption and
condenser water use measurements of continuous ice makers based on the
ratio of enthalpy reduction of the water/ice product achieved in the
machine (incoming water enthalpy less ice product enthalpy) to the
enthalpy reduction that would be achieved if the ice were produced at
32 [deg]F with no liquid water content. DOE proposed to base the
adjustment on the ice quality of continuous type ice makers, as
measured using the ``Procedure for Determining Ice Quality'' in section
A.3 of normative annex A in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. DOE proposed
that the calorimeter constant, defined and measured using ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 29-2009, be used to calculate an ``ice quality adjustment
factor.'' This factor is a ratio of the refrigeration required to cool
water from 70 [deg]F to 32 [deg]F and freeze all of the water compared
to the refrigeration required to cool 70 [deg]F water to the mixture of
frozen ice and liquid water produced by the ice maker under test. The
reported (adjusted) energy consumption would be equal to the ice
quality adjustment factor multiplied by the energy consumption per 100
pounds of ice measured using ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. The
condenser water use would be adjusted in the same way. 76 FR at 18432-
33 (April 4, 2011). DOE did not propose similar adjustment for the
harvest rate.
Interested parties, including Manitowoc, Howe Corporation (Howe),
and NEEA, generally supported this approach. (Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p.
41; Howe, No. 0017 at pp. 2-3; NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 2) However,
Scotsman commented that normalization of energy and water consumption
with respect to ice hardness could result in selection of higher energy
consumption products by the consumer because when a consumer fills a
glass or cooler with ice, they do so based on the volume of space the
ice occupies, not the cooling power it provides. Scotsman added that,
in rating

[[Page 1596]]

ice machines based on the total weight of the product of ice and water
rather than just the ice content, the consumer gets a more accurate
measurement of the amount of energy consumed to produce the nugget of
ice that is in the cup or cooler, while ``normalizing'' to 32 [deg]F
ice with no water content gives a more accurate measure of the energy
used to produce a certain amount of cooling power contained in the ice,
but is not representative of how the ice is typically used. (Scotsman,
No. 0010 at p. 1) Scotsman also asked if DOE intended to require ice
hardness reporting. (Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 1)
DOE maintains that, because energy and condenser water consumption
are directly related to ice hardness, measurement and normalization
with respect to ice hardness is necessary to compare equipment from
different manufacturers accurately. In response to Scotsman's concern,
DOE notes that this test method will not affect the availability of
automatic commercial ice makers that produce lower quality ice; it will
simply provide a method by which automatic commercial ice maker energy
consumption and condenser water use results can be compared to a
baseline ice quality. DOE acknowledges that, if consumers value total
pounds of ice rather than the cooling that can be provided by the ice,
the unadjusted energy and water consumption data may provide a better
indication of the energy use per quantity valued by the customer.
However, DOE believes that scaling energy and water consumption with
respect to ice quality will result in more comparable values for
determining compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards. The
harvest rate of these ice makers will not be adjusted with respect to
ice hardness. In addition, DOE is not considering changes to the
certification requirements in this test procedure rulemaking. Thus, in
this final rule, DOE is adopting the provisions proposed in the April
2011 NOPR to scale the energy and water consumption measured in ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 based on a ratio of the refrigeration required
to cool water from 70 [deg]F to 32 [deg]F and freeze all of the water
compared to the refrigeration required to cool 70 [deg]F water to the
mixture of frozen ice and liquid water produced by the ice maker under
test.
c. Ice Hardness Versus Ice Quality
As discussed above, DOE in the April 2011 NOPR proposed that the
calorimeter constant, determined using ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, be
used to determine an ``ice quality adjustment factor.'' 76 FR at 18433
(April 4, 2011). Scotsman, Manitowoc, and Hoshizaki all commented that
the term ``ice quality'' should instead be referred to as ``ice
hardness,'' as defined in AHRI Standard 810-2007. (Scotsman, No. 0005
at p. 38; Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 40; Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at pp. 44-
45) Howe countered that ``ice hardness,'' as defined in the AHRI
standard, should not be used to replace the proposed ``ice quality''
used in the ASHRAE standard because the term ``ice hardness'' is
confusing and is a misstatement. (Howe, No. 0017 at p. 8)
In response to comments from interested parties, DOE is using the
term ``ice hardness'' in place of the term ``ice quality'' throughout
this rule, since it is defined in AHRI Standard 810-2007 and seems to
be the preferred term within the industry. Specifically, DOE is
defining the ``ice hardness adjustment factor,'' as opposed to the
previously defined ``ice quality adjustment factor,'' which will be
calculated in order to scale energy consumption and condenser water
use. DOE acknowledges Howe's comment that this may cause confusion, but
contends that the terms ``ice hardness'' and ``ice quality'' are used
interchangeably in the industry, and understands the two terms to have
the same meaning.
d. Sub-Cooled Ice
Just as ice makers that produce less than 100 percent hardness ice
will use less energy than ice makers that produce 100 percent 32 [deg]F
ice, ice makers that produce sub-cooled ice, or higher than 100 percent
hardness ice, require more energy to produce a given mass of ice
product. At the April 2011 NOPR public meeting and in subsequent
written comments, Manitowoc, Howe, and NEEA all commented that the
adjustment of energy and water consumption with respect to ice hardness
should be allowed for sub-cooled ice as well as low hardness ice.
(Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 42; Howe, No. 0005 at pp. 45-46; NEEA, No.
0013 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with interested parties that the energy content of sub-
cooled ice should also be adjusted with respect to 32 [deg]F ice of 100
percent hardness. However, DOE notes that the measurement of ice
hardness is not limited to low hardness ice and that quantification of
the ice hardness for sub-cooled ice is possible using the adopted
procedure for ice hardness normalization. Rather, the adopted test
procedure already accounts for the additional cooling associated with
production of sub-cooled ice. DOE clarifies that ice hardness testing
of ice makers that produce sub-cooled ice can be conducted using the
ice hardness test procedure adopted in today's final rule and that the
energy use and condenser water use measurements for ice makers that
produce sub-cooled ice can and should be adjusted using the ice
hardness adjustment factor.
e. Ice Hardness Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers
AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-
2009 both specify that ice hardness testing is only to be performed for
continuous type ice makers. In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE also proposed
that measurement and scaling of energy and water consumption values
based on ice hardness only be required for continuous type ice makers.
76 FR at 18433 (April 4, 2011).
In written comments submitted in response to the April 2011 NOPR,
Follett recommended that the ice quality adjustment be applied to batch
type ice makers as well as continuous type. (Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1)
DOE agrees with Follett that there would be value in requiring
batch machines to perform the ice hardness measurement and scale their
energy consumption accordingly. Testing and normalizing energy and
water consumption values for ice hardness would account for the
additional energy consumption of batch type commercial ice makers that
produce sub-cooled ice and would allow for the most consistent results
across all ice makers. In addition, some batch type automatic
commercial ice makers may produce cube type ice with some liquid water
content. DOE believes that this would account for the additional energy
consumption of batch type commercial ice makers that produce sub-cooled
ice and would allow for the most consistent results across all ice
makers. However, DOE does not have any data or information regarding
the existence of batch type ice makers that vary from 100 percent
hardness or the extent to which their hardness departs from 100
percent. DOE believes that, for most batch type ice makers, the ice
hardness will be nearly 100 percent and any departure from 100 percent
will be within the statistical accuracy of the ice hardness
measurement. Lacking sound information, DOE is unable to justify the
additional burden associated with requiring ice hardness measurement
and scaling of energy and water consumption for batch type ice makers
at this time. Thus, in today's final rule DOE specifies that only
continuous type ice makers are required to measure ice hardness and
adjust the energy

[[Page 1597]]

consumption and condenser water use based on the ice hardness
measurement.
f. Variability of the Ice Hardness Measurement
DOE is aware of concerns regarding the accuracy and repeatability
of the ice hardness test. These concerns were voiced during the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR[supreg] discussions
with interested parties regarding revisions to the ENERGY STAR
specification for automatic commercial ice makers.\3\ In written
comments received during the comment period that followed the
publication of the April 2011 NOPR, Scotsman recommended the tolerance
for the ice hardness factor be 5 rather than
5 percent, as test data Scotsman has indicates that 5
percent is too tight when accounting for water mineral content, which
can have a substantial impact on ice hardness. (Scotsman, No. 0010 at
pp. 2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Hoffman, M. Personal Communication. Consortium for and
Energy Efficiency, Boston, MA. Letter to Christopher Kent, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, regarding written comments
submitted in response to the ENERGY STAR Commercial Ice Machines
Version 2 Draft 1 Specification, June 11, 2011. http://
www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/
downloads/commercial_ice_machines/ACIM_Draft_1_V_2.0_
Comments__-CEE.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of this rulemaking and the ongoing energy conservation
standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037), DOE conducted
testing of ice makers, including running the ice hardness tests. In
conducting this testing, DOE wished to better understand the source of
any variability in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 normative annex A.
Specifically, DOE wished to discern the variability, if any, in the
measurement of ice hardness that could be attributed specifically to
inaccuracy in the test method, rather than inherent variability in the
hardness of ice produced by a given ice maker. DOE determined that the
fundamental test procedure established in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009
is sound. However, DOE believes that several areas of the test
procedure are unclear and could be misinterpreted. This includes
confusing nomenclature and references in normative annex A, as well as
specification of the specific temperatures, weights, and tolerances to
be used in the test procedure.
DOE believes ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 normative annex A
specifies two procedures:
1. Section A2, ``Procedure,'' which specifies the calibration of
the calorimeter device and the calculation of the calorimeter constant
for the device; and
2. Section A3, ``Procedure for Determining Quality of Harvested
Ice,'' which is used to determine the ice hardness of a given ice
maker's ice product, defined as the ``ice hardness factor'' in AHRI
Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1.
DOE also believes there is confusion in determining the ice
hardness factor of a given ice sample using section A3. AHRI Standard
810-2007 with Addendum 1 specifies that the ice hardness factor is the
latent heat capacity of ice harvested in British thermal units per
pound (Btu/lb), as defined in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29, Table A1, line
15, divided by 144 Btu/lb, multiplied by 100, presented as a percent.
DOE believes that this value should also be multiplied by the
calorimeter constant, line 18 of Table A1, as determined in section A2
at the beginning of that day's tests. This is equivalent to line 19 in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 Table A1, although it is not clear that
the calibration constant used in line 18 is to be determined with
seasoned block ice during the calibration procedure. To clarify this
procedure, DOE will require that the ice hardness factor, as defined in
AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1, be calculated, except that it
shall reference the corrected net cooling effect per pound of ice, line
19 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 Table A1, and the calorimeter
constant used in line 18 shall be that determined in section A2 using
seasoned, block ice.
The ice hardness factor will be used to determine an adjustment
factor based on the energy required to cool ice from 70 [deg]F to 32
[deg]F and produce a given amount of ice, as shown in the following:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA12.045

The measured energy consumption per 100 pounds of ice and the
measured condenser water consumption per 100 pounds of ice, as
determined using ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, will be multiplied by
the ice hardness adjustment factor to yield the adjusted energy and
condenser water consumption values, respectively. These values will be
reported to DOE to show compliance with the energy conservation
standard.
DOE explored the variation in both the calibration procedure and
the procedure for determining an ice maker's ice hardness factor in
laboratory testing. DOE hypothesized the following variables, which
could contribute to variability in the test procedure:
How to ensure that ice is ``seasoned''
Thermal conductivity and specific heat of bucket
Frequency and timing of calibration
Vigorousness of ice stirring
Location of temperature sensor in the ice bucket
Variation in ambient conditions
Difference between water temperature and ambient air
temperature
Time allowed between production of ice and initiation of
ice hardness test
DOE conducted testing to determine the significance of these
variables on the calorimeter constant result. DOE believes
standardization and tolerances are important because otherwise there is
no indicator of how close a measurement must be to the specified value
in order to comply with the test procedure.
In section A2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, which specifies the
calibration procedure for the calorimeter, DOE found that the type of
``seasoned'' ice used significantly affected the calibration of the
device, but that variation of all other factors examined did not have a
significant effect provided they were maintained within a reasonable
range. DOE believes ``seasoned'' ice is ice that is 32 [deg]F
throughout with as little entrained water as possible. A single block
of seasoned ice is used to minimize the amount of water on the surface
of the ice due to the low surface area to volume ratio. If multiple,
smaller cubes are used, and seasoned in the same manner, it is much
more difficult to ensure that the surface liquid is removed so that a
calorimeter

[[Page 1598]]

constant of less than 1.02 can be obtained.
DOE believes the calorimeter constant should be viewed as a
calibration constant that is representative of the specific heat of the
calorimeter device. This calorimeter constant shall not be greater than
1.02 when determined with seasoned block ice. This limit establishes
that the calorimetry procedure is being performed correctly and all
equipment is accurately calibrated.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 normative annex A specifies the
temperature difference between the air and water, the weight of water,
and the weight of ice, but does not specify acceptable tolerances for
any of these parameters. For example, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009
normative annex A does not specify an initial water temperature or
ambient air temperature. Instead, the initial water temperature is
specified as 20[emsp14] [deg]F above room temperature. Also, this
temperature differential does not have an associated tolerance.
Similarly, the weights to determine the calorimeter constant in section
A2, 30 pounds of water and 6 pounds of ice, do not have specified
tolerances.
DOE found that changes in the ambient temperature, the temperature
difference between the air and water, the weight of ice, and the weight
of water did not affect the calorimeter constant significantly.
However, DOE still must specify tolerances in order to ensure
compliance with the test procedure. As such, DOE assumes the tolerances
specified in section 6 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, ``Test
Methods,'' also apply to the normative annex, namely water and air
temperature shall be within 1 [deg]F of the specified value and the
measured weights of ice and water shall be within 2
percent of the quantity measured. DOE believes that the ice hardness
measurement should be conducted at the same ambient temperature as the
other testing, namely 70 [deg]F. This will increase the accuracy and
repeatability of the measurement. DOE believes that a temperature
differential of 20 [deg]F is appropriate, as it minimizes heat flow
into and out of the water. DOE does not believe maintaining 70 [deg]F
1 [deg]F ambient air temperature and obtaining 90 [deg]F
1 [deg]F initial water temperature will be burdensome for
manufacturers as it is commensurate with the ambient requirements
already called for in the energy consumption and condenser water
consumption test, and 90 [deg]F water is easily attainable from a
standard water heater. As such, DOE is clarifying in today's final rule
that normative annex A of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 shall be
performed at 70 [deg]F 1 [deg]F ambient air temperature
with an initial water temperature of 90 [deg]F 1 [deg]F
and weights shall be accurate to within 2 percent of the
quantity measured.
With these changes and assumptions, DOE was able to produce a
repeatable calorimeter constant measurement of less than 1.02 when
testing using seasoned ice. While there may be variations in ice
hardness inherent to the machine, for given hardness of ice, DOE was
able to produce ice hardness results that agree within 1.3 percent.
In response to Scotsman's comment regarding tolerances of the ice
hardness factor, as defined in AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1,
DOE believes that 5 percent variability for a given basic
model should be sufficient given the data DOE has collected on ice
hardness measurements. DOE does not have data to validate the need for
or support the development of a different tolerance for the ice
hardness of continuous type ice makers. The variance on the ice
hardness factor is only relevant to the extent that it impacts the
calculation of energy consumption or condenser water use. With respect
to the reported energy and condenser water use, manufacturers must meet
DOE's certification, compliance, and enforcement (CCE) regulations for
automatic commercial ice makers, which established the relevant
sampling plans and tolerances for the certified ratings of energy and
water consumption values. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011).
In summary, DOE believes there is sufficient accuracy and precision
in the test procedure for determining ice hardness prescribed in ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 normative annex A, with the exception that the
test shall be conducted at an ambient air temperature of 70 [deg]F
1 [deg]F, with an initial water temperature of 90 [deg]F
1 [deg]F, and weights shall be accurate to within 2 percent of the quantity measured. DOE believes adding these
specifications and tolerances will allow for greater repeatability and
standardization without significant additional burden on manufacturers.
All other potential sources of variability were found to not
significantly affect the calculated ice hardness.
g. Perforated Containers for Continuous Type Ice Makers
As mentioned previously, continuous type ice makers produce ice
that is not 100 percent frozen and contains some liquid water. In the
current industry test procedures, a non-perforated container is used to
capture the ice product so that all of the ice/water mixture is
included in the harvest rate and the ice hardness measurement.
At the April 2011 NOPR public meeting, Howe commented that the
container that is used for continuous ice should be a perforated
container rather than a solid container to remove chilled water that is
not usable ice from the test procedure process. (Howe, No. 0005 at p.
48) Howe noted that, beyond beverage dispensing, there is no useful
application for the cooled liquid water content of low hardness ice.
(Howe, No. 0005 at p. 56) Scotsman and Hoshizaki commented that when
consumers use ice, they usually do so based on volume of both ice and
water, so there is value in both the water and the ice portion.
(Scotsman, No. 0005 at p. 39; Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at p. 45) Manitowoc
provided the example of low quality ice being useful in beverage
dispensers and packing fish. (Manitowoc, No. 0005 at pp. 55-56)
In response to Howe's suggestion that perforated containers be used
for continuous type ice makers, Scotsman commented that it may not be
practical to use a perforated container to capture continuous ice
because the liquid water is infused in the ice and it takes a long time
for it to drain out, and the ice would melt over that period.
(Scotsman, No. 0005 at pp. 50-51) Hoshizaki noted that with a
perforated container the size of the perforations would need to be
defined because very small bits of ice, called ``dust ice,'' may fall
through the perforations, causing a loss of good quality ice.
(Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at p. 51) Hoshizaki added that the calorimetry
test already accounts for the differences between low hardness ice and
high hardness ice. (Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at pp. 51-52) Manitowoc agreed
with Hoshizaki with respect to the calorimetry test being sufficient to
differentiate low hardness and high hardness ice. (Manitowoc, No. 0005
at p. 52) NEEA commented that a perforated basket should not be
required for continuous type ice makers because only a fraction of the
product that is not fully hardened (chilled water) will escape the
matrix of the hardened product in a reasonable period. In addition,
NEEA commented that this would introduce an unfortunate degree of test
complexity and variability in the results and that any improvement in
the product accounting should be worth this additional complexity and
variability. (NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 2)
DOE believes that, as Manitowoc, Scotsman, and Hoshizaki stated,
there is clear value and customer utility in the liquid water content
of low hardness ice and that this should be measured as part

[[Page 1599]]

of the ice product when determining the harvest rate. DOE also believes
that the proposed procedure for adjusting energy and water consumption
measurements with respect to ice hardness, defined in section
III.A.3.b, is sufficient to describe the differences between ice with
different amounts of water content. Further, if a perforated container
were used for testing continuous type ice makers, this would not be
representative of the ``ice product'' consumers receive and expect. DOE
is not requiring testing of continuous type ice makers with a
perforated container in today's final rule and instead is maintaining
the industry-accepted method of testing continuous type ice makers with
a non-perforated container to measure harvest rate and test for ice
hardness.
4. Clarify the Test Method and Reporting Requirements for Remote
Condensing Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
EPCA establishes energy conservation standards for two types of
remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers: (1) Remote
condensing (but not remote compressor) and (2) remote condensing and
remote compressor. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) Remote condensing (but not
remote compressor) ice makers are sold and operated with a dedicated
remote condenser that is in a separate section from the ice-making
mechanism and compressor. Remote condensing and remote compressor
automatic commercial ice makers may be operated with a dedicated remote
condensing unit or connected to a remote compressor rack. Units
designed for connection to a compressor rack may also be sold with
dedicated condensing units, but some rack-connection units are sold
only for rack connection, without a dedicated refrigeration system. The
energy use of such equipment is often reported without including the
compressor or condenser energy use, since manufacturers generally do
not have a compressor rack at their disposal for testing purposes. In
the April 2011 NOPR, DOE proposed that remote condensing ice makers
that are designed to be used with a remote condensing rack would be
tested with a sufficiently sized dedicated remote condensing unit. This
approach was proposed to ensure that ratings for such equipment
represent all of the energy use incurred by such machines for making
ice, including the compressor and condenser energy use. 76 FR at 18433-
34 (April 4, 2011).
Howe, Manitowoc, NEEA, Follett, CA IOUs, and the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) all agreed with DOE's proposal to test remote
condensing ice makers designed to be connected to a remote condensing
rack using dedicated remote condensing units and reporting the energy
consumption of the ice-making mechanism, condenser, and compressor.
(Howe, No. 0005 at p. 63; Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 64; NEEA, No. 0005
at p. 64; Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 2; NRDC,
No. 0012 at p. 1) Earthjustice and NRDC both recommended that DOE
provide clear guidance on how to select a remote condensing unit to
pair with a given ice maker for such a test. (Earthjustice, No. 0005 at
p. 75; NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 1) However, the CA IOUs and NEEA commented
that, given that ice production performance is closely tied to the
refrigerant system specifications, as manifested in the ice-making
head, manufacturers will likely select compressor/condenser components
that are properly matched to the requirements of the balance of the
system, since any significant deviation from this would likely change
ice production performance and adversely affect the energy performance
rating of the system. (CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 0013 at pp.
2-3) NEEA suggested that one possible guideline for selecting the
balance-of-system components might simply be to require that the ice-
making head be tested with the compressor/condenser components that
would be shipped with it if sold with a dedicated condenser; however,
NEEA also commented that this is a minor issue. (NEEA, No. 0013 at pp.
2-3)
Hoshizaki stated that, generally, a rack unit ice machine is
similar in construction to other ice machines that are designed to be
paired with a remote condensing unit, but that is not necessarily the
case every time. (Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at p. 67) Hoshizaki continued
that it does not have a condensing unit designed for use with its
largest rack unit machine and it would have to develop such a
condensing unit to test the ice maker as proposed. (Hoshizaki, No. 0005
at pp. 67-68) Scotsman stated that it also manufactures products that
are meant to be connected to rack systems for which it does not offer a
dedicated condensing unit, and that it would be problematic for
Scotsman to develop a companion condensing unit for it. Scotsman added
that such a rating would be arbitrary because it would not represent
what was actually sold. (Scotsman, No. 0005 at pp. 72-73) Scotsman
recommended that only the power of the ice-making mechanism should be
reported for units that do not have matched dedicated condensing units,
because reporting power for the condensing units for those machines
would require manufacturers to either design and build or purchase a
condenser that would never be offered for sale. (Scotsman, No. 0010 at
p. 2) Manitowoc agreed that, in most situations, manufacturers will use
the same basic evaporator section and controls for both a parallel rack
and remote condensing/compressor, so the inclusion of the remote system
with a dedicated condensing unit will effectively cover the testing and
regulation of the majority of automatic commercial ice machines, even
if they are matched to a parallel rack system. Manitowoc recommended
that the test method only include matched remote condensing systems
with a designated condensing unit, and that any evaporator section that
is sold only for application with a remote parallel rack is outside of
the scope of the regulations. (Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 2) Howe stated
that many of the units it manufactures are designed solely for use with
remote, field-built refrigeration systems, and it does not have
condensing units available to test these units. Howe contended that
this would leave them and other small manufacturers with no choice but
to discontinue models, thus decreasing sales and severely harming their
financial viability. (Howe, No. 0017 at pp. 4-5)
DOE believes that testing all remote condensing and remote
compressor automatic commercial ice makers that are designed to be
connected to a remote compressor rack with a sufficiently sized
dedicated remote condensing unit will adequately represent the energy
consumption of this equipment without introducing undue burden. DOE
notes that typically a remote condensing and compressor ice maker is
designed to be paired with only one type of dedicated condensing unit
and agrees with interested parties that manufacturers will be
encouraged to test the ice maker using this paring as it will ensure
the ice maker operates most efficiently. Thus, DOE does not believe
further specification as to the pairing of remote condensing and remote
compressor ice-making mechanisms and dedicated remote condensing units
is required. For remote condensing and remote compressor ice makers
that can be sold either with a matched dedicated condensing unit or for
connection to a remote compressor rack, this method provides a
straightforward and consistent way to compare the performance of remote
condensing and remote compressor ice makers. Even

[[Page 1600]]

though DOE believes that the dedicated condensing unit and ice maker
will be a unique combination and further specificity in the test
procedure is unnecessary, DOE notes that the ratings for each basic
model must be based on the least efficient individual model
combination.
For remote condensing and remote compressor ice makers that are
never sold with a dedicated condensing unit, DOE considered Manitowoc's
comment that ice makers designed only for connection to remote
compressor racks are out of the scope of the regulations. DOE concurs
with this comment, finding that these units are inconsistent with the
definition of ``automatic commercial ice maker'' in EPCA. EPCA defines
an automatic commercial ice maker as ``a factory-made assembly (not
necessarily shipped in one package) that--(1) consists of a condensing
unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated unit, with means
for making and harvesting ice.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(19)) Because remote
condensing automatic commercial ice makers that are solely designed to
be connected to a remote rack are not sold or manufactured with a
condensing unit, they do not meet the definition of an automatic
commercial ice maker under the statute. Hence, the test procedure final
rule does not address such products. DOE notes that remote condensing
automatic commercial ice makers designed to be connected to a remote
rack constitute a small market share and are typically more efficient
than similar, smaller capacity ice makers. DOE also notes that there is
interest by manufacturers and the ENERGY STAR program for DOE to
provide a test method for these types of systems. Consequently, DOE
will address testing of remote condensing automatic commercial ice
makers designed to be connected to a remote rack in its ENERGY STAR
test procedure development process, which is separate from this
rulemaking.
In summary, DOE clarifies in this final rule that remote condensing
automatic commercial ice makers that are sold exclusively to be
connected to remote compressor racks do not meet the definition of an
automatic commercial ice maker set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6311(19) and,
as such, are not subject to DOE regulations.
DOE further notes that ice makers that could be connected to remote
compressor racks but are also sold with dedicated condensing units are
covered by DOE regulations in their configuration when sold with
dedicated condensing units.
5. Discontinue Use of a Clarified Energy Rate Calculation
The current DOE test procedure references ARI Standard 810-2003,
with an amended calculation for determining the energy consumption rate
for the purposes of compliance with DOE's energy conservation
standards. ARI Standard 810-2003 references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-
1988 (RA 2005) as the method of test for this equipment, including the
equations for calculating the energy consumption rate per 100 pounds of
ice produced. In the 2006 en masse proposed rule, DOE found the
language in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005) unclear and proposed
that the energy consumption rate be normalized to 100 pounds of ice
instead and be determined as shown in the following equation. 71 FR at
71350 (Dec. 8, 2006).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA12.046

At the September 2006 public meeting for the 2006 en masse proposed
rule, ARI supported DOE's proposal to adopt ARI Standard 810-2003 as
the test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers with the revised
energy use rate equation. However, ARI further stated that the ARI and
ASHRAE standards have been used without the clarification. (Docket No.
EE-RM/TP-05-500, ARI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at pp. 45-46)
The equation contained in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005),
as adopted, directs that the energy consumption shall be calculated as
the weight of ice produced during three specified time periods divided
by the power consumed during those same three time periods. The
specified time periods are defined as three complete cycles for batch
type ice makers and three 14.4-minute periods for continuous type ice
makers. The verbatim equation from ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA
2005) is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA12.047

In the above equation, ``kWh/100 lb ice'' refers to the desired
energy consumption rate normalized per 100 pounds of ice produced; 8.2a
refers to the data to be recorded for the capacity test, specifically
weight in pounds of ice produced for three prescribed periods of
collection; and 8.4a refers to the section of the standard that
describes the data to be recorded for the calculation of energy
consumption, specifically the energy input in kilowatt-hours for the
same periods prescribed for measurement of capacity. This equation did
not change in the update of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005) to
the most recent ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009.
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE concluded that the procedure specified
in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 is clear and unambiguous. As a result,
DOE proposed to remove the clarification for the calculation of energy
consumption rate in this rulemaking. 76 FR at 18434-35 (April 4, 2011).
AHRI, NEEA, Manitowoc, Follett, Hoshizaki, and Scotsman all supported
DOE's proposal to remove the calculation for energy consumption. (AHRI,
No. 0015 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 3;
Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1; Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at p. 93; Scotsman, No.
0005 at p. 93)
DOE believes the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 test procedure
clearly states that the mass of ice collected will be recorded for each
of the three complete periods specified. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009
also states that the power consumption will be recorded for the same
three periods. DOE believes that this statement is clear and does not
provide opportunity for misinterpretation. Additionally, DOE
acknowledges that this method may show more consistency in the average
energy use rate calculation and, further, is the method typically used
in industry

[[Page 1601]]

today. In this final rule, DOE is removing the language that clarifies
the calculation of energy consumption rate.
6. Test Procedure Compliance Date
EPCA, as amended, requires that any amended test procedures for
automatic commercial ice makers shall comply with section 6293(e) of
the same title (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(C)), which in turn prescribes that
if any rulemaking amends a test procedure, DOE must determine ``to what
extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured
energy efficiency * * * of any covered product as determined under the
existing test procedure.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) Further, if DOE
determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured
efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy
conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e), DOE evaluated the amended
test procedure, as adopted in today's final rule, to determine if it
will affect the measured energy efficiency of a covered piece of
equipment determined under the existing test procedure. DOE believes
that the amendments set forth in today's final rule will not change the
measured energy consumption of any covered piece of equipment. The
reasoning for this determination is set forth in the following section.
When the revised ACIM test procedure final rule goes into effect,
30 days from today's publication in the Federal Register, the energy
conservation standards set in EPACT 2005 for automatic commercial ice
makers that produce cube type ice of capacities between 50 and 2,500
pounds of ice per 24 hours will be in effect. DOE believes that the
only test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule applicable to
automatic commercial ice makers covered under EPACT 2005 standards are
those that update the references to industry test procedures to their
most current versions and discontinue the use of a clarified energy use
rate equation. DOE believes that these amendments would not
significantly affect the measured energy or water use of equipment for
which standards are currently in place.
The amendment that updates the references to industry test
procedures to their most current versions is not anticipated to affect
the measured energy consumption or condenser water use of covered
equipment determined by DOE's existing test procedure. The updated
industry test procedures, AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 and
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, primarily expand the test procedure to
continuous type ice makers and ice makers with capacities up to 4,000
pounds of ice per 24 hours, which does not affect the test procedure
for ice makers that make cube type ice with capacities between 50 and
2,500 pounds of ice per 24 hours. AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum
1 revised the definition of ``potable water use rate'' and added new
definitions of ``purge or dump water'' and ``harvest water'' that more
accurately describe the water consumption of automatic commercial ice
makers. This change only affects measurement of the potable water use
of automatic commercial ice makers and, as such, does not impact the
DOE test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers. The amendment
that discontinues the use of the clarified energy use rate equation is
primarily editorial and does not fundamentally affect the way automatic
commercial ice makers are tested. These amendments are described in
more detail in sections III.A.1 and III.A.5. DOE notes that if
manufacturers test a given basic model using the amended test procedure
and find it results in a more consumptive rating than its certified
value, they are required to recertify the given basic model with the
Department.
In this final rule, DOE also adopts other test procedure amendments
that are only applicable to types of automatic commercial ice makers
for which energy conservation standards do not currently exist. In the
concurrent ACIM energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No.
EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037), DOE is considering establishing energy
conservation standards for batch type and continuous type ice makers
with capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. This includes
new energy conservation standards for batch type ice makers that
produce cube type ice with capacities between 2,500 and 4,000 pounds of
ice per 24 hours, batch type ice makers that produce other than cube
type ice with capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24
hours, and continuous type ice makers with capacities between 50 and
4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. Because there currently are no
standards for the aforementioned types of ice makers, 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)
does not apply to test procedure amendments that affect only those
equipment types.

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comment Summary and DOE Responses

At the April 2011 NOPR public meeting and in the ensuing comment
period, DOE received comments from interested parties that were in
response to issues discussed in the ACIM test procedure proposed
rulemaking, but which are not among the amendments discussed above and
included in this final rule. The additional matters on which DOE
received comments are as follows:

This section discusses these comments and DOE's responses to them.
1. Test Method for Modulating Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
An ice maker could theoretically be designed for multiple capacity
levels, either using a single compressor capable of multiple or
variable capacities, or using multiple compressors. This may be
advantageous since ice makers operate at full capacity for only a small
portion of the time, if at all. Such a system could potentially produce
ice more efficiently when operating at a low capacity level because
there would be more heat exchanger surface area available relative to
the mass flow of refrigerant, which would reduce temperature
differences in the heat exchangers and result in operation of the
compressor with lower pressure lift. DOE is not aware of any evidence
that such a system has been sold or tested anywhere in the world.
However, the basic concept is illustrated by the current use of
different capacity models using the same heat exchangers with different
capacity compressors. For such product pairs, the lower capacity
machine is generally more efficient.
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE proposed an optional test procedure to
measure energy and water use of variable or multiple capacity systems.
The proposed procedure involved measuring energy use in kilowatt-hours
per 100 pounds of ice and water use in gallons per 100 pounds of ice of
at least two production rates and calculating weighted average energy
use and water use values. DOE proposed that, for modulating capacity
systems, testing would be done at the maximum and minimum capacity
settings. These

[[Page 1602]]

values would then be averaged to determine the energy consumption and
condenser water consumption of the ice maker. DOE proposed equal
weighting of the measurements at different capacities (as represented
by the average) and requested information and data that might be used
to develop a weighting scheme more representative of field use. 76 FR
at 18434 (April 4, 2011).
At the April 2011 NOPR public meeting and in subsequent written
comments, interested parties all agreed that DOE was premature in
establishing test procedures for a technology that was not on the
market, or even in development, and that DOE should wait until there is
more information about how these machines would function before
establishing a test procedure. (AHRI, No. 0005 at p. 85; Scotsman, No.
0010 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 3; Howe, No.
0017 at p. 5) NRDC and NEEA offered that manufacturers are free in the
future to seek waivers from established test procedures if and when
they need to do so to certify such a product complies with DOE's energy
conservation standards. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 0013 at p.
3) NEEA also offered to consider acquiring some ice maker end-use
metering data to determine ice maker duty cycles to shed some light on
how to weight tested energy use values in the future. (NEEA, No. 0013
at p. 3)
DOE acknowledges the comments of interested parties and concedes
that incorporating a method for accommodating modulating capacity ice
makers may be premature, since modulating capacity ice makers currently
do not exist and there is limited information about how such equipment
would function. DOE will not incorporate a test method for testing
automatic commercial ice makers at multiple capacity ranges at this
time. If a manufacturer develops such an ice maker, DOE encourages that
manufacturer to follow the test procedure waiver process in 10 CFR
431.401.
2. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify in the DOE test
procedure that tube and other batch technologies can be tested by the
current industry test procedures using the batch type test method. 76
FR at 18436 (April 4, 2011). Scotsman, Manitowoc, and Follett supported
DOE's approach of treating all non-cube batch type ice makers
consistently using the test procedure for batch type ice makers.
(Scotsman, No. 0005 at p. 97; Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 97; Follett,
No. 0008 at p. 1) The CA IOUs asked DOE to clarify in the DOE test
procedure that tube, cracked, and other batch type technologies will be
included by the proposed DOE definitions and test method. (CA IOUs, No.
0011 at p. 2)
DOE agrees with the comments from Scotsman, Manitowoc, and Follett
regarding categorization of tube type ice machines, and finds that tube
type machines can be tested under the currently available test
procedures. Therefore, DOE is clarifying in the DOE test procedure that
tube and other batch technologies can be tested by the current industry
test procedures using the batch type test method. DOE will treat all
batch type machines, as defined previously in the proposed rule, the
same. This will include tube type, cube type, and other batch type
automatic commercial ice makers.
3. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy Use
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE referred to energy consumed when an ice
maker is not producing ice as auxiliary energy consumption. 76 FR at
18436 (April 4, 2011). DOE also noted that the magnitude of this energy
use is less than one percent of the total daily ice maker's energy
consumption, assuming typical auxiliary power levels and ice maker duty
cycle (i.e. portion of time in a day that the ice maker produces ice).
Thus, DOE did not propose incorporating the measurement of auxiliary
energy use in the test procedure since DOE could not find economic
justification in the potential energy savings generated when
considering the additional test procedure burden associated with
auxiliary power testing. 76 FR at 18436 (April 4, 2011).
Follett, Scotsman, and the CA IOUs supported DOE's determination
that an additional test procedure to quantify auxiliary energy
consumption is not justified. (Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 3; Follett, No.
0008 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 2) Manitowoc agreed with DOE's
finding that auxiliary energy use represents an insignificant
contribution to the total energy consumption of a commercial ice
machine.\4\ Manitowoc further stated that any attempt to incorporate
these minor standby losses would require definition of the percentage
of time the ice machine is operating in a typical installation, would
require laboratories to measure power consumption at levels below 1
percent of operating input power, and in the end would at most change
the energy efficiency value for the machine by an amount well below the
tolerances allowed in the reference test standards. (Manitowoc, No.
0009 at p. 3) Manitowoc added that there actually is no auxiliary
energy consumption in an automatic commercial ice maker, since ice
makers are all electrically powered and all of the electricity use is
measured while they operate during a test. (Manitowoc, No. 0005 at pp.
109-110)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ At the Framework Document public meeting, Manitowoc
mentioned that standby energy use due to sensors could represent an
electrical load as high as 10 watts in some units. (Docket No. EERE-
2010-BT-STD-0037, Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at p. 143)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs and NEEA stated that, based on the definition of
standby (i.e., connected to a power source and not performing any of
its primary functions), DOE should call this mode ``standby mode''
instead of ``auxiliary mode.'' (CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 2; NEEA, No.
0013 at pp. 3-4)
AHRI agreed with DOE's conclusion that the auxiliary energy use
during the non-ice-making period is very small and that its
quantification is not justified. AHRI offered that ``standby mode''
energy consumption represents a very small portion of the energy usage
and is negligible. AHRI also stated that EPCA does not give DOE the
authority to regulate ``standby mode'' and ``off mode'' energy for
commercial equipment because section 42 U.S.C. 6295 of EPCA, as amended
by EISA 2007, specifically deals with consumer products (i.e.,
residential equipment) and not commercial equipment. (AHRI, No. 0015 at
p. 3)
NRDC and Earthjustice disagreed with AHRI and commented that the
statutory direction regarding standby for consumer products requires
that it be considered for implementation when test procedures for
consumer products are revised, but that this does not preclude DOE from
considering standby or other aspects of auxiliary energy use in
commercial products. (NRDC, No. 0005 at p. 107; Earthjustice, No. 0014
at p. 1) Earthjustice also noted that, although Congress did not
specifically mandate the development of standby and off mode energy
consumption metrics for commercial equipment, 10 watts is consistent
with the baseline levels of standby energy consumption that Congress
considered significant enough to merit regulation in residential
products. Earthjustice pointed to 73 FR 62052 (Oct. 17, 2008), where
baseline standby power for microwave ovens was given as 4 watts, and 75
FR 64627 (Oct. 20, 2010), where baseline standby and off mode
electricity consumption of furnaces was given as ranging from 2 to 10
watts. Earthjustice added that, even if measuring and regulating the
between-cycle energy consumption of ice makers would at best reduce the

[[Page 1603]]

total energy consumption of this equipment by no more than 1 percent,
promulgating ice maker standards that fail to capture these energy
savings, if technologically feasible and economically justified, would
be inconsistent with EPCA's direction to maximize energy savings. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Earthjustice also stated that including
provisions in the test procedure to measure the energy consumption of
ice makers in between ice-producing cycles is needed to comport with
the EPCA requirement that test procedures accurately depict real-world
energy consumption (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)), as the consumers of this
equipment are unlikely to unplug their ice makers when the ice storage
bin is full. (Earthjustice, No. 0014 at p. 1)
NRDC and NEEA both recommended that DOE incorporate a measure of
auxiliary energy use into the test procedure, as consumption levels as
high as 10 watts certainly warrant measurement, and incorporate this
measure into the efficiency standard if justified. (NRDC, No. 0012 at
p. 2; NEEA, No. 0005 at p. 99) NEEA also stated that this energy
consumption should be called ``standby energy consumption,'' and
disagreed that the measurement of standby energy use represents
anything more than a minor additional testing burden, as the equipment
required to measure it precisely is inexpensive and the test, as
spelled out in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62301,
is simple to conduct. (NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 3-4)
DOE agrees with commenters that auxiliary energy use could also be
referred to as standby energy consumption. DOE has been unable,
however, to collect sufficient information regarding standby mode
energy use to support the promulgation of a standby mode test procedure
within the scope of this rulemaking.
4. Measurement of Storage Bin Effectiveness
A common metric used to quantify ice meltage in the ice storage bin
is storage bin effectiveness. Storage bin effectiveness is defined as a
theoretical expression of the fraction of ice that under specific
rating conditions would be expected to remain in the ice storage bin 24
hours after it is produced, stated as a percentage of total ice
deposited in the bin. AHRI has a standard, AHRI 820-2000, that
describes a test method for quantifying the effectiveness of ice
storage bins. This method, or a similar method, is also used in the
Canadian and Australian test procedures for automatic commercial ice
makers to quantify ice storage bin effectiveness.
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE stated that, while quantifying the
additional energy use associated with ice storage losses could
contribute to additional energy savings, doing so would result in an
inconsistency between the standards for self-contained and remote
condensing ice makers or ice-making heads because DOE would only be
addressing the ice storage losses associated with the storage bins that
are shipped with the ice making mechanism from the point of
manufacturer (i.e., self-contained ice makers). Consequently DOE noted
that there could be an increased burden resulting from testing for
storage bin effectiveness for manufacturers of self-contained units
only. DOE proposed, for these reasons, to not include a quantification
of meltage in the storage bin in this rulemaking. 76 FR at 18436 (April
4, 2011).
Howe, Manitowoc, Hoshizaki, and Scotsman commented that ice storage
bins are typically not specified by the manufacturer, are separate
devices, have different lifetimes, and can be paired with one automatic
commercial ice machine in many different combinations based on a
variety of end-user requirements. These manufacturers all contended
that it would be difficult to include ice storage bins as a part of the
test procedure for ice-making equipment, and testing all possible
combinations would be excessively burdensome and costly for all
manufacturers. (Howe, No. 0017 at p. 4; Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 3;
Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at pp. 124-125; Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 3) Howe
further commented that ice storage bins are often sold separately from
the automatic commercial ice makers, and many small manufacturers only
produce ice storage bins, not ice machines. (Howe, No. 0017 at p. 4) In
addition, Howe, Follett, and Manitowoc all commented that ice storage
bin efficiencies are outside the scope of this proposed rule and
suggested that if a test procedure for ice storage bin effectiveness is
established, it should be separate from the ACIM test procedure. (Howe,
No. 0017 at p. 4; Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1; Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p.
116) AHRI expressed its opinion that DOE lacks the authority to
regulate the effectiveness of storage bins because EPACT 2005 only
addresses the energy consumption of commercial ice makers and nothing
else. (AHRI, No. 0015 at p. 2)
Earthjustice commented that there is precedent for DOE to adopt
test procedures and standards for products that account for such
indirect forms of energy consumption. (Earthjustice, No. 0014 at p. 2)
Earthjustice further commented that the statute's definition of
automatic commercial ice maker states that an automatic commercial ice
maker may include a means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing
and dispensing ice. Earthjustice added that while Congress did not
establish standards applicable to the storage of ice, it did provide
DOE with a requirement to amend standards for automatic commercial ice
makers, and if storage is a part of the ice maker, clearly the
Department has the authority. (Earthjustice, No. 0005 at p. 119) NRDC
and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) commented that DOE
should not preclude coverage of storage bins in the standards
rulemaking by not covering them in the test procedure. (NRDC, No. 0005
at p. 119; ASAP, No. 0005 at p. 129) The CA IOUs, NEEA, and NRDC
recommended that the Department include a measure of ice storage bin
effectiveness in the test procedure, applicable to units shipped with
an integral bin, since ineffective storage contributes to additional
energy use, condenser water use, and potable water use for a given end-
user demand for finished ice. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 0005
at p. 124; CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 3) NRDC and NEEA further stated that
the concern over additional test burden is misguided given that an AHRI
test method for quantifying the effectiveness of storage bins has long
been available and Canadian standards already require manufacturers to
conduct this test. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 0005 at p. 124)
NEEA further stated that it sees no problem in measuring storage bin
effectiveness only for self-contained equipment, as there are other
test procedure inconsistencies between classes already and this one is
appropriate to the equipment. In response to manufacturer comments that
one ice-making head may be shipped with any one of a number of storage
bins, NEEA offered that a separate efficiency metric for the storage
bins could easily work in practice. (NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 4)
While DOE acknowledges stakeholders' concerns regarding storage bin
effectiveness, DOE has determined that it will not pursue a measure for
storage bin effectiveness at this time. Many ice makers (ice-making
heads and remote compressing ice makers) can be paired with any number
of storage bins, often produced by other manufacturers, and are
typically paired in the field upon installation. In these cases, the
effectiveness of such storage bins is

[[Page 1604]]

beyond the control of the manufacturer of the ice making head or remote
compressing ice maker.
Furthermore, if DOE were to regulate self-contained ice makers
only, it could disincentivize the manufacturing of such devices,
effectively eliminating a feature (built-in ice storage bins). See 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). In order to avoid this outcome, DOE is choosing not
to regulate self-contained ice makers only. Therefore, DOE believes it
would be more consistent to promulgate test procedures and subsequent
standards for ice storage bins and the bins of self-contained ice
makers at the same time. Due to market complexities inherent in the
pairing of ice makers and storage bins, DOE is declining to include a
quantification of meltage in the storage bin as part of this
rulemaking.
5. Establishment of a Metric for Potable Water Used To Produce Ice
The current DOE energy conservation standard for automatic
commercial ice makers established metrics of energy use per 100 pounds
of ice for all equipment classes, and condenser water use per 100
pounds of ice produced for water-cooled models only. However, automatic
commercial ice makers consume potable water to produce ice as well.
AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 defines ``potable water use
rate'' as the amount of potable water used in making ice, including
``dump or purge water'' and ``harvest water.'' AHRI Standard 810-2007
with Addendum 1 defines ``dump or purge water'' as the water from the
ice-making process that was not frozen at the end of the freeze cycle
and is discharged from a batch type automatic commercial ice maker and
``harvest water'' as the water that has been collected with the ice
used to measure the machine's capacity.
Including potable water used to produce ice in the overall water
metric could produce significant water savings and additional energy
savings. The current EPA ENERGY STAR standard for automatic ice makers
limits water use in air-cooled machines to less than 25 gallons per 100
pounds of ice for remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers and
35 gallons per 100 pounds of ice for self-contained equipment.\5\ In
addition, both the previously referenced ARI Standard 810-2003 and the
updated AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 provide a test method to
measure the amount of water used in making ice in units of gallons per
100 pounds of ice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Commercial Ice
Machines Key Product Criteria. 2008. (Last accessed March 5, 2011.)
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=comm_ice_machines.pr_crit_comm_ice_machines
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE stated that it had examined the
statutory authority in EPCA for the establishment of test procedures
and energy and water conservation standards for automatic commercial
ice makers and determined that the Department does not have a direct
mandate from Congress to regulate potable water use under 42 U.S.C.
6313. Therefore, in the April 2011 NOPR, DOE proposed not to regulate
potable water used in making ice in this rulemaking. 76 FR at 18437
(April 4, 2011).
AHRI commented that potable water consumption information is
already available in the AHRI online database, which is publicly
available, and recommended against requiring potable water testing in
the DOE test procedure due to the increased burden of meeting DOE's CCE
regulations. (AHRI, No. 0005 at pp. 139-140) AHRI, Follett, and
Scotsman agreed that potable water use should not be regulated as part
of this rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 0015 at pp. 3-4; Follett, No. 0008 at p.
2; Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 3) Manitowoc added that, for continuous
type machines, essentially all potable water is converted to ice
product, so there is no significant variation among available models;
and for batch machines, potable water use is related to energy
efficiency, which drives manufacturers to minimize potable water use in
achieving higher energy efficiency. Manitowoc also offered that,
depending on the design of the batch ice machine, there is an optimum
range where further reduction in potable water use can dramatically
affect the reliability of the ice machine and the quality of the ice
that it produces, and stated that establishing regulations on potable
water use without understanding these limits and trade-offs could
significantly affect life-cycle cost to the end user. (Manitowoc, No.
0009 at p. 3)
Conversely, Howe contended that there should be a calculation for
potable water use in ice machines because chilled waste water is
currently collected along with ice and is included in the measured
production capacity of some ice machines, while waste water is ignored
in other machines. (Howe, No. 0005 at p. 132; Howe, No. 0005 at pp.
145-146) Howe also contended that this requirement should apply to
batch type and continuous type ice machines. (Howe, No. 0017 at pp. 5-
6)
NEEA and NRDC stated that establishing a measurement for potable
water in the test procedure would be beneficial, but that standards for
potable water consumption may not be required. (NEEA, No. 0005 at pp.
136-137; NRDC, No. 0005 at p. 135) The CA IOUs, NRDC, and NEEA
recommended that DOE adopt in this test procedure rulemaking the test
method to measure potable water as outlined in the AHRI/ASHRAE
standards, and disagreed with DOE regarding the Department's authority
to regulate potable water, as prescribed in EPCA. (CA IOUs, No. 0011 at
p. 3; NRDC, No. 0012 at p.2; NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 4-5) The CA IOUs,
ICF International (ICF), and NEEA further stated that the potable water
use of more than half of commercial ice makers shipped in the United
States is currently being measured and reported by manufacturers for
ENERGY STAR qualification and, as such, adding a method to measure the
potable water use should not significantly increase the testing burden
for manufacturers. (CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 3; ICF, No. 0005 at p. 141;
NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 4-5)
Earthjustice, NEEA, and NRDC commented that, although Congress has
not directly instructed the Department to regulate potable water use,
DOE has the authority to do so in accordance with the purposes of EPCA
and with Congress' intent to achieve energy savings by regulating
automatic commercial ice makers. Earthjustice and NRDC also stated that
the reporting of potable water consumption data would be valuable in
its own right for specifiers, end users, and water supply utilities.
(NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 4-5; Earthjustice, No.
0005 at p. 150)
Earthjustice also responded to DOE's interpretation that the
footnote to the table at 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) suggests that Congress
specifically considered potable water use, and excluded it.
(Earthjustice, No. 0005 at p. 132) Earthjustice claimed that DOE's
admission that EPCA has left a ``gray area'' surrounding the
Department's authority to adopt potable water standards for ice makers
suggests that DOE views this issue as one of interpreting an ambiguous
statute--an activity in which courts grant substantial deference to the
executive branch. Earthjustice pointed to Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S.
837, 843-44 (1984), as the controlling precedent. Earthjustice stated
that it would be unreasonable to conclude that Congress intended to
prohibit DOE from adopting potable water standards for ice makers, as
the note following the table in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) by its own terms
applies only to the initial standards codified in EPACT 2005, and had
Congress intended to restrict DOE's authority to adopt water
consumption standards encompassing potable water

[[Page 1605]]

use, it could have easily provided that DOE is only authorized to adopt
revised energy use and condenser water use standards. Instead, argued
Earthjustice, the fact that Congress clarified the inapplicability of
the EPACT 2005 standards to potable water consumption but did not enact
express language to similarly limit DOE's authority in subsequent
rulemakings indicates that DOE is authorized to require the measurement
and regulation of potable water consumption. (Earthjustice, No. 0014 at
pp. 2-3)
DOE acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding the coverage of
potable water consumption in the ACIM test procedure. Regarding DOE's
authority to promulgate an ACIM test procedure addressing potable water
use, DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 6313(d) does not require DOE to develop a
water conservation test procedure or standard for potable water use in
cube type ice makers or other automatic commercial ice makers. Rather,
it sets forth energy and condenser water use standards for cube type
ice makers at 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), and allows, but does not require,
the Secretary to issue analogous standards for other types of automatic
commercial ice makers under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2).
Ambiguous statutory language may lead to multiple interpretations
in the development of regulations. As the U.S. Supreme Court has held,
``[i]f [a] statute is ambiguous on [a] point, we defer * * * to the
agency's interpretation so long as the construction is `a reasonable
policy choice for the agency to make.' '' Nat'l Cable & Telecomms.
Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 986 (2005) (quoting
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
845 (1984)). DOE believes that it is unclear whether the footnote on
potable water use that appears in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) has a
controlling effect on 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3).
Potable water use is not referenced anywhere else in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d),
and thus it is difficult to determine whether this footnote is a
clarification or a mandate in regard to cube type ice makers, and
furthermore, whether it would apply to the regulation of other types of
automatic commercial ice makers. Without a clear mandate from Congress
on potable water use generally, and given that Congress chose not to
regulate potable water use for cube type ice makers by statute, DOE
exercises its discretion in choosing not to include potable water use
in its test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers.
While there is generally a positive relationship between energy use
and potable water use, DOE understands that at a certain point the
relationship between potable water use and energy consumption reverses
due to scaling. Based on this fact, and given the added complexity
inherent to the regulation of potable water use and the concomitant
burden on commercial ice maker manufacturers, DOE will not regulate or
require testing and reporting of the potable water use of automatic
commercial ice makers at this time. Although AHRI Standard 810-2007
with Addendum 1 already includes a measurement of potable water
consumption, and reporting of potable water use is required by the
ENERGY STAR program, neither performance of AHRI Standard 810-2007 nor
participation in the ENERGY STAR program is mandatory. Because DOE test
procedures are mandatory for all equipment sold in the United States,
DOE must be more cognizant of burden and the limitation of products or
features when determining the test procedures and energy conservation
standards for covered equipment.
Earthjustice, NRDC, and NEEA noted that among the stated purposes
of EPCA, as amended by EPACT 1992, is the conservation of water in
certain plumbing products and appliances under 42 U.S.C. 6201(8).
(Earthjustice, No. 0014 at pp. 2-3; NRDC, No. 0012 at p.2; NEEA, No.
0013 at pp. 4-5) At the time of its adoption, the language of 42 U.S.C.
6201(8) supported DOE's regulation of water use efficiency in plumbing
products such as showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals.
Congress added the regulation of automatic commercial ice makers later,
in EPACT 2005. Given that Congress often amends portions of statutes in
subsequent legislation, courts have had to examine how to interpret
unchanged parts of the statute in light of amended sections of the same
statute. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that ``a specific policy
embodied in a later Federal statute should control construction of the
earlier statute.'' Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 143 (2000). Congress set forth the general
purposes of its energy and water conservation program for appliances in
42 U.S.C. 6201, but later established more specific requirements for
certain products, including automatic commercial ice makers. In EPACT
2005, Congress required DOE to issue standards for automatic commercial
ice makers, but excluded consideration of potable water use.
Earthjustice noted that DOE currently regulates water use in
residential clothes washers (Earthjustice, No. 0014 at pp. 2-3), but
again, this is not controlled by 42 U.S.C. 6201(8). DOE did not
regulate water use for residential clothes washers under 42 U.S.C.
6295(g) until directed to by Congress in EISA 2007, section 311(a)(2).
Thus, DOE chooses today to interpret 42 U.S.C. 6201(8) consistently
with how it has interpreted the provision in the past: as a general
guiding principle that is implemented through provisions within EPACT
1992 and subsequent amendments for specific products and equipment.
In summary, DOE is using its discretion to not cover potable water
in this rulemaking to limit the burden on manufacturers, especially
considering that standards for potable water do not currently exist and
are not being considered in the concurrent ACIM energy conservation
standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037).
6. Standardization of Water Hardness for Measurement of Potable Water
Used in Making Ice
Differences in water hardness can cause ice machines to use more or
less energy and water. Harder water has a greater concentration of
total dissolved solids and chemical ions, which affects the thermal
properties of the water. Harder water depresses the freezing
temperature of water and results in increased energy use to produce the
same quantity of ice. In addition, harder water requires a higher purge
setting to prevent scaling and a decrease in ice clarity. While DOE
recognizes that differences in water hardness can affect the energy and
water consumption of an automatic commercial ice maker, DOE believes
that there is still uncertainty in the causal relationship between
total dissolved solids, ion concentration, and ice maker performance.
Given the uncertainty in the relationship between water hardness and
water and energy consumption, DOE proposed in the April 2011 NOPR not
to standardize water hardness in the test procedure, but requested
additional data that would support evaluation of the need for a
standardized water hardness test. Specifically, DOE requested
additional data or information regarding (1) The relationship between
total dissolved solids, ion concentration, and energy and water use;
(2) the magnitude of these effects; and (3) specific testing
methodologies that would produce repeatable results. 76 FR at 18437
(April 4, 2011).
Manitowoc, Follett, and NEEA supported DOE's recommendation to not
bring water hardness into the rulemaking. (Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p.

[[Page 1606]]

154; Follett, No. 0008 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 5) Manitowoc and
NEEA agreed that water hardness or quality has a greater effect on
reliability and maintenance than it does on energy efficiency of
commercial ice makers and felt it would be a significant effort to
properly define and obtain ``standard hardness'' water for testing
purposes. (Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 5)
Scotsman suggested that, if water hardness were indeed a significant
factor in energy consumption, it would become apparent in the
certification and enforcement actions related to the equipment and the
Department could move to standardize it at that time, after DOE had
collected more information. (Scotsman, No. 0005 at pp. 158-159)
Scotsman also offered that it knows anecdotally that water hardness
will impact the hardness of flake and nugget ice, but does not have
data at this time to present a correlation. (Scotsman, No. 0010 at p.
3) NRDC suggested that the Department consider a range of acceptable
water hardness values as a condition for the test procedure. (NRDC, No.
0005 at p. 154) Hoshizaki suggested that if DOE considers a band of
water hardness values that are acceptable to test within, it should
make sure that water of a value within the band is geographically
available everywhere across the United States. (Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at
p. 162)
DOE appreciates interested parties' comments and agrees that there
is still uncertainty in the causal relationship between total dissolved
solids, ion concentration, and ice maker performance. Specifically, it
is not clear whether total dissolved solids or ion concentration is
more significant in impacting the energy performance of an ice maker.
DOE did not receive any additional data that would suggest the proper
test procedure specifications for water hardness. As such, DOE
maintains that an appropriate standardized water hardness for use in a
test procedure cannot be accurately specified at this time, and even if
it could, applying such a test procedure would increase the testing
burden for manufacturers. In addition, the primary effect of increasing
water hardness would be increased potable water used in making ice.
This is because the potential for scale formation increases with higher
water hardness, requiring an increase in the dump water used in batch
type ice machines that produce cube type ice. Since DOE is not
addressing potable water in this rulemaking, DOE is not standardizing
water hardness in the test procedure at this time, but requests
additional data that would support evaluation of the need for a
standardized water hardness test.
7. Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers at the Highest Purge Setting
At the energy conservation standard Framework document public
meeting, ASAP cautioned that installers may install cube type ice
makers with a purge setting in the highest water use position, which
may substantially increase water consumption in the field compared to
the manufacturer tested water consumption. (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-
STD-0037, ASAP, No. 0013 at p. 16) DOE does not have data to validate
these claims and believes that the manufacturer-specified purge setting
is how ice makers are meant to be installed in the field. Also, as DOE
did not propose to regulate potable water used in making ice in the
April 2011 NOPR, DOE did not believe it was justified to require
testing of automatic commercial ice makers at the highest purge
setting. Instead, DOE proposed to continue to require testing of
automatic commercial ice makers in accordance with AHRI 810-2007 and
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. DOE also committed to investigate the
magnitude and effects of this issue by gathering data related to
national water hardness, the difference between manufacturer
recommended and maximum purge settings, and the way ice makers are
typically installed in the field. 76 FR at 18437-38 (April 4, 2011).
In commenting on the April 2011 NOPR, Manitowoc, Hoshizaki, and
Follett supported the current AHRI and industry practice to test ice
makers at the water purge setting as instructed in the manufacturer's
installation and operation manual for ``normal'' quality potable water.
(Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 4; Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at p. 165; Follett,
No. 0008 at p. 2) Scotsman suggested that if DOE were going to consider
a standard that included variability in the level of purge, testing
should be done at both a maximum flush level setting and a minimum
flush level setting, to give manufacturers credit for water conserving
purge options. (Scotsman, No. 0005 at p. 167)
NRDC commented that both energy and water consumption can vary
considerably across the range of field-adjustable purge settings,
3 percent for energy consumption and 20 percent
for potable water consumption, and recommended that ice makers be
tested in their highest water consumption purge setting. (NRDC, No.
0012 at p. 2) The CA IOUs agreed that DOE should require testing of ice
makers at the purge setting that uses the most water. (CA IOUs, No.
0011 at p. 4) NEEA commented that the specification to test ice
machines with the ``as shipped'' purge setting would lead to all units
being shipped in the minimum purge mode, resulting in very
unrepresentative potable water use measurements. NEEA cautioned that
this would violate the spirit, if not the letter, of 42 U.S.C.
6214(a)(2). (NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 5) NEEA and NRDC stated that the
Department's proposal simply to allow manufacturers to specify the
purge setting for testing purposes fails to maintain the integrity of
the testing process and reduces the incentive to innovate in this area
of machine performance. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 0013 at p.
5) Howe stated that, in order to standardize energy consumption and
water usage, it is necessary to test at the highest purge setting,
especially because energy usage increases as the purge setting
increases. (Howe, No. 0017 at p. 6)
Although both AHRI 810-2007 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009
require that the ice makers be set up pursuant to the manufacturer's
instruction, DOE acknowledges that this may not capture the maximum
potable water consumption of the unit or, perhaps, the most common
water consumption setting of the unit. DOE found that the manufacturers
recommended purge setting is typically an intermediate purge setting
which is adequate for most parts of the U.S. Also, DOE found that some
manufacturers who offered adjustable purge settings offered low purge
settings, in addition to high purge settings, to conserve water in
those places with low water hardness.
However, DOE has found no data or information related to how ice
makers are currently installed in the field. Further, all previous test
data are from tests conducted at this default test setting, and
requiring testing at another level will make historical comparisons
difficult and significantly increase the testing burden for all
manufacturers, since manufacturers would be required to recertify all
their models using the new test procedure. Also, changes in purge
setting most strongly affect potable water consumption and affect
energy use to a lesser degree. As DOE will not regulate potable water
used in making ice in this rulemaking, and the preponderance of
previous data come from tests conducted at the manufacturer recommended
purge setting, DOE will require testing of automatic commercial ice
makers in accordance with AHRI 810-2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 29-2009 in this final rule and

[[Page 1607]]

will not further specify the required purge setting.
8. Consideration of Space Conditioning Loads
In written comments submitted in response to the April 2011 NOPR,
Howe commented that the majority of air-cooled self-contained automatic
commercial ice makers are located within air conditioned spaces (e.g.,
motels/hotels, restaurants, bars, retail food markets, institutions,
and airports). Howe opined that the total heat rejection of the
automatic commercial ice maker, including the heat removed at the
evaporator, heat related to suction-cooled hermetic and semi-hermetic
compressors, and the fan/motor efficiency related heat, should be
tested and published so that consulting engineers can accurately
calculate the sensible heat gain to the air conditioned space.
Howe illustrated, saying a 970 pound per 24 hour output automatic
commercial ice maker located in a 70 [deg]F space supplied with 50
[deg]F water adds the total rejected heat of 8,450 Btu to the space,
which must be removed by the building cooling system, while the energy
consumption of this automatic commercial ice maker is 3.8 kWh per 100
pounds of ice. The energy consumed by the building cooling system to
remove this sensible internal heat gain to the conditioned space is
estimated to be 0.85 kWh, or 22 percent of the energy consumed by the
ice maker in question. Howe also stated that no intermediate cooling is
required if this heat is rejected directly to outdoor air and provided
the four examples of water cooled condensers, remote air cooled
condensers, remote dedicated split condensing units, and an ice machine
that is field-connected to a remote compressor rack (field-built
refrigeration system) that serves other evaporators throughout the
building. (Howe, No. 0017 at pp. 8-9)
DOE acknowledges that the total rejection of heat indoors for air-
cooled self-contained and ice-making head automatic commercial ice
makers may impact space cooling loads, but DOE expects changes from
revised and new ice maker standards to be negligible. In chapter 2 of
the preliminary technical support document for commercial refrigeration
equipment that DOE published on March 30, 2011, DOE determined that the
effect of efficiency improvements in self-contained commercial
refrigeration equipment on space conditioning loads was negligible.\6\
DOE expects the impact of efficiency improvements in automatic
commercial ice makers to be less than that of commercial refrigeration
equipment because there are typically fewer automatic commercial ice
makers per building.\7\ In addition, there is a high degree of
variability in the impact of this rejected heat on the total building
heating and cooling load due to differences in weather, building size,
and building type. In cold climates, the additional heat rejected by
the ice maker may decrease building space heating loads. Moreover,
requiring testing and reporting of the total heat rejection of
automatic commercial ice makers would increase the testing and
reporting burden for self-contained and ice-making head equipment. DOE
does not believe this increase in testing burden for some ice makers is
justified given the magnitude of impact ice makers are expected to have
on space conditioning loads. Manufacturers may publish total heat
rejection information and engineers may request this information when
it is required, but DOE does not believe it will be required in all
cases and, further, believes that it is not relevant to DOE's standards
for automatic commercial ice makers. DOE is not including testing or
reporting for total heat rejection of automatic commercial ice makers
in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ U.S. Department of Energy--Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. Preliminary Technical Support Document (TSD):
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Commercial Refrigeration Equipment, Chapter 2: Analytical
Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses.
March 2011. Washington, DC http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/cre_pa_tsd_ch2_analytical_framework.pdf.
\7\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential and R&D
Opportunities for Commercial Refrigeration, Final Report. 2009.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy--Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, DC http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/commercial_refrig_report_10-09.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Burden Due to Cost of Testing
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that the test procedures promulgated
by DOE be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect
energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of the
covered equipment during a representative average use cycle. EPCA also
requires that the test procedure not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
At the April 2011 NOPR public meeting and in subsequent written
comments, many interested parties commented on the burden of testing
for manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers. AHRI commented
that the issue of regulatory burden is not associated with conducting
the test itself, but with DOE's CCE requirements. AHRI emphasized that,
accounting for DOE's CCE requirements, the cost to comply with the
Federal standard would be 10 or 100 times what DOE projected. (AHRI,
No. 0005 at p. 179) AHRI suggested that alternative energy
determination methods, although not currently available for ice makers,
could be developed to help manufacturers comply with DOE's regulations
and reduce the burden on manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 0005 at p. 180)
Howe commented that, using DOE calculations of the cost of testing,
the cost to Howe would range from $620,000 to $930,000 in the first
year, and stated that this amount vastly exceeds what would be
reasonable for a small manufacturer to absorb. Howe further commented
that the costs of testing for small manufacturers as estimated in the
NOPR are significantly understated for several reasons, including the
fact that small manufacturers typically produce large, custom equipment
that they are unable to test in current test facilities. Howe suggested
that manufacturers of remote automatic commercial ice machines be
allowed to test the most commonly sold remote ice maker configuration
(ice maker, compressor, and condenser) for each productive capacity of
automatic commercial ice maker and apply those energy consumption
ratings to similar remote automatic commercial ice makers of the same
productive capacity. (Howe, No. 0017 at pp. 6-8)
Conversely, NEEA contended that the testing required by AHRI
Standards 810 and 820 is not overly burdensome to conduct, even
including tests for potable water use and standby energy consumption.
NEEA further stated that the tests proposed by the Department, along
with a test for potable water consumption, standby energy use, and
storage bin effectiveness, seem to be the minimum required to fully
characterize the energy and water use of these products, and are the
same tests that the manufacturers are already doing, whether it be for
Canadian standards, ENERGY STAR, or AHRI product listings. (NEEA, No.
0013 at p. 5)
DOE notes that this final rule addresses only the incremental
burden of the test procedure changes. DOE does not believe these test
procedure amendments will significantly increase

[[Page 1608]]

the burden on manufacturers, and the amended test procedure is the
minimum required to fully characterize and compare the performance of
automatic commercial ice makers. DOE maintains that it is not possible
to further limit the burden within the test procedure and still meet
the requirements of EPCA that the test procedure be representative of
ice maker performance during a typical period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2))
The purpose of this assessment of the burden of testing is to
identify the changes in burden arising solely from the proposed changes
in the test procedure. DOE acknowledges that other recent rulemakings
also impact the overall burden on manufacturers to test and certify
equipment for compliance with DOE's Appliances and Commercial Equipment
Standards program. In the final rule DOE published on March 7, 2011,
which established certification, compliance, and enforcement
regulations for covered equipment (the CCE final rule), DOE established
requirements for determining the number of units that must be tested
and for designing a sampling plan for reliable testing. 76 FR at 12422.
Currently, manufacturers must test a minimum of two units of each basic
model to arrive at the maximum energy use rating for that basic model,
unless otherwise specified. 76 FR at 12480 (March 7, 2011). Due to
issues raised by some manufacturers of larger, custom equipment,
including automatic commercial ice makers, on June 22, 2011 DOE
published a revised final rule establishing new compliance dates for
certification of automatic commercial ice makers, which is 18 months
from publication in the Federal Register. 76 FR 38287 (June 30, 2011).
DOE notes that the CCE final rule published March 7, 2011 is only
applicable to automatic commercial ice makers for which standards were
set in EPACT 2005, namely automatic commercial ice makers that produce
cube type ice with capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per 24
hours. For other types of ice makers covered under this test procedure
final rule, CCE requirements have not yet been established and will be
considered in a separate rulemaking.
DOE acknowledges manufacturers' concerns about the burden
associated with the overall testing and certification of automatic
commercial ice makers. To help reduce test burden on manufacturers of
low production volume, such as highly customized equipment like
automatic commercial ice makers, DOE is considering alternative energy
determination methods or alternative rating methods for automatic
commercial ice makers. DOE recently issued a request for information on
this issue. 76 FR 21673 (April 18, 2011).
In response to Howe's comment, this test procedure rulemaking does
not describe sampling plans or define basic model requirements for
automatic commercial ice makers, because that information is in the CCE
final rule. DOE notes that the CCE final rule establishes basic model
definitions that allow manufacturers to group individual models with
similar, but not exactly the same, energy performance characteristics
into a basic model for purposes of fulfilling the Department's testing
and certification requirements. The Department encourages manufacturers
to group similar individual models as they would in current industry
practice, provided all models identified in a certification report as
being the same basic model have the same certified efficiency rating.
The CCE final rule also establishes that the efficiency rating of a
basic model must be based on the least efficient or most energy
consuming individual model, or, put another way, all individual models
within a basic model must be at least as good as the certified rating.
The regulations also require certification of a new basic model if a
modification results in an increase in energy or water consumption
beyond the rated amount. 76 FR at 12428-29 (March 7, 2011).
The specific burden on small manufacturers is discussed in DOE's
revised final regulatory flexibility analysis, which can be found in
section IV.B of this document.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking. When an agency promulgates a final rule after being
required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency
must prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). The
requirement to prepare these analyses does not apply to any proposed or
final rule if the agency certifies that the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. If the agency makes such a certification, the agency
must publish the certification in the Federal Register along with the
factual basis for such certification.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, so that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE reviewed the proposed rule to amend the test procedure for
automatic commercial ice makers under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003. DOE certified that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not
result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. DOE received comments on the economic impacts of the test
procedure and responds to these comments in section III.B.9. After
consideration of these comments, DOE continues to certify that the test
procedure amendments set forth in today's final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
factual basis for this certification is set forth below.
For manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers, the Small
Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines
those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of
the statute. DOE used the SBA's size standards published on January 31,
1996, as amended, to determine whether any small entities would be
required to comply with the rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The standards
are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code and industry description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. ACIM manufacturers are
classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less for

[[Page 1609]]

an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
DOE conducted a market survey using all available public
information to identify potential small manufacturers who could be
impacted by today's final rule. DOE reviewed industry trade association
membership directories (including the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM)), product databases (e.g., Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), the Thomas Register, California Energy Commission
(CEC) and ENERGY STAR databases), individual company Web sites, and
marketing research tools (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet reports) to create a
list of companies that manufacture or sell automatic commercial ice
makers covered by this rulemaking. DOE reviewed this data to determine
whether the entities met the SBA's definition of a small business and
manufactured automatic commercial ice makers. DOE screened out
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and
operated.
DOE initially identified 24 manufacturers of automatic commercial
ice makers available in the United States. Of these 24 companies, 10
were determined to be foreign owned or have more than 750 employees,
meaning that they would not qualify as small businesses. Of the
remaining 14 entities, 5 manufacture ice makers for residential uses
and 1 has filed for bankruptcy. Thus, DOE identified 8 manufacturers
that produce covered automatic commercial ice makers and can be
considered small businesses.
Table IV.1 stratifies the small businesses according to their
number of employees. The smallest company has 5 employees and the
largest has 175 employees. The majority of the small businesses
affected by this rulemaking (75 percent) have fewer than 50 employees
and all but one of the small businesses have fewer than 100 employees.

Table IV.1--Small Business Size by Number of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of small Percentage of Cumulative
Number of employees businesses small businesses percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-50................................................... 6 76 75
51-100................................................. 1 13 88
101-150................................................ 0 0 88
151-200................................................ 1 13 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This final rule amends the test procedure for automatic commercial
ice makers. Specifically, DOE is incorporating revisions to the DOE
test procedure that:
1. Update the references to AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1
and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009;
2. Expand the scope of the test procedure to include equipment with
capacities from 50 to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours;
3. Provide test methods for continuous type ice makers and
standardize the measurement of energy and water use for continuous type
ice makers with respect to ice hardness;
4. Clarify the test method and reporting requirements for remote
condensing automatic commercial ice makers designed for connection to
remote compressor racks; and
5. Discontinue the use of a clarified energy use rate calculation
and instead calculate energy use per 100 pounds of ice as specified in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009.
Changes to the existing rule as described in the preceding
paragraph have potential impacts on manufacturers who will be required
to revise their current testing program to comply with DOE's energy
conservation standards. DOE has analyzed these impacts on small
businesses and presents its findings in the remainder of this section.
Currently, only automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube
type ice with capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per 24
hours must be tested using the DOE test procedure to show compliance
with energy conservation standards established in EPACT 2005. Automatic
commercial ice makers with larger capacities, batch type ice makers
that produce other than cube type ice, and continuous type ice makers
of any capacity have not been subject to this rule. This rulemaking
would institute new testing requirements for automatic commercial batch
type ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities between
2,500 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours, batch type ice makers that
produce other than cube type ice with capacities between 50 and 4,000
pounds of ice per 24 hours, and continuous type ice makers with
capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. The costs
to manufacturers associated with these test procedures were estimated
to range from $5,000 to $7,500 per tested model. This estimate is based
on input from manufacturers and third-party testing laboratories for
completing a test as specified by AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum
1 on automatic commercial ice makers. Additional testing requirements
will be mandatory for continuous type ice makers to assess ice
hardness, as discussed in the following paragraph.
The additional test methods required for continuous type ice makers
will standardize energy and water use with respect to ice hardness.
This test will consist of performing an additional calorimetry test, as
specified in ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, normative annex A. DOE estimates
that performing this test will require 2 additional hours of laboratory
time, including the time to perform necessary calculations, per unit.
Costs associated with the calorimetry test have been estimated by DOE
to equal approximately 10 percent of the AHRI 810 test or $500 to $740.
These costs would not include those associated with transportation,
assuming that the unit would be analyzed at the same time as the
required AHRI 810 test. DOE estimates that 28 percent of all automatic
commercial ice makers would be subject to this additional test
procedure. This estimate was developed based on publicly available
listings of automatic commercial ice makers (e.g., AHRI and CEC
databases) and manufacturer Web sites.
The primary cost for small businesses under this rulemaking would
result from the aforementioned additional testing requirements. These
costs were applied to the number of existing designs subject to testing
requirements outlined in this rulemaking, which DOE estimated at 30
models (for all small businesses combined) in the April 2011 NOPR. DOE
based the April 2011 NOPR estimate on an estimate of fundamental ACIM
individual model offerings, consolidated into basic models based on
similar features. For example, DOE estimated that each capacity of each
unique product line (typically

[[Page 1610]]

determined by SKU numbers) represented a separate basic model that was
required to be certified. DOE researched manufacturer catalogs and
publically available databases to determine the number of unique
product lines and capacities manufacturers offered to arrive at the
estimate of 30 basic models for all small businesses.
Based on DOE's review of public comments in response to the April
2011 NOPR and a detailed discussion of model characteristics with one
small manufacturer, the number of models affected by these test
procedures was increased to 264 models for all small manufacturers.
This increase was based on the number of different features offered
within each product line that DOE did not account for in the April 2011
NOPR estimate, such as different refrigerants. Further, DOE assumes
that each company would introduce a new base model (8 new models for
testing) in each year of the 5-year (2015-2019) analysis time horizon
(for a total of 40 new models for testing). Thus, costs are higher in
the first year following implementation of the new testing requirements
as existing models are tested but decline in future years as the
requirements are applied only to new models. Two scenarios were
developed to reflect the low- and high-end cost estimates for each test
presented previously in this section. Based on these assumptions,
testing costs for small businesses were estimated at $1.4 to $2.0
million in 2015 and $41,120 to $60,858 in 2016 through 2019. DOE
presents the costs for the testing of all of these models in Table
IV.2. As discussed below, however, DOE notes that based on grouping of
similar basic models, the total number of models to be tested is likely
to be significantly smaller.
In addition to testing costs, DOE estimates an additional $24,572
in review and filing costs over the 5-year analysis time horizon. DOE
bases its estimate on the assumptions that it would take an engineer 2
hours to communicate with the testing laboratory, review test results,
prepare adequate documentation, and file the report. The average hourly
salary for an engineer completing these tasks is estimated at
$38.74.\8\ Fringe benefits are estimated at 30 percent of total
compensation, which brings the hourly costs to employers associated
with review and filing of reports to $55.34.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. 2009.
Washington, DC.
\9\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--Management, Professional,
and Related Employees. 2010. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The incremental costs incurred by small businesses to implement the
requirements of this rulemaking are summarized in Table IV.2. Total
costs to small businesses are estimated at $1.5 to $2.3 million over
the 5-year analysis time horizon. The present value costs of this
rulemaking on small businesses are estimated at $1.2 to $1.7 million,
or $144,989 to $213,477 per small business, for an average annual cost
of $28,998-$42,695. Annual costs are discounted using a 7-percent real
discount rate, as recommended in OMB Circular A-94.

Table IV.2--Annual Costs of Compliance for Small Businesses (2015-2019)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing costs Review/ Total costs Discounted costs
Year -------------------------- filing ---------------------------------------------------
Low end High end costs Low end High end Low end High end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015......................................................... $1,356,960 $2,008,301 $21,916 $1,378,876 $2,030,217 $1,051,938 $1,548,843
2016......................................................... 41,120 60,858 664 41,784 61,522 29,791 43,864
2017......................................................... 41,120 60,858 664 41,784 61,522 27,843 40,995
2018......................................................... 41,120 60,858 664 41,784 61,522 26,021 38,313
2019......................................................... 41,120 60,858 664 41,784 61,522 24,319 35,806
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................... 1,521,440 2,251,731 24,572 1,546,012 2,276,303 1,159,912 1,707,820
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Cost per Small Business............................................................................................... 144,989 213,477
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also estimated costs to small businesses using CCE basic model
definitions, which allow manufacturers to group individual models with
similar, but not exactly the same, energy performance characteristics
into basic models for purposes of compliance with DOE's regulations. 76
FR at 12428-29 (March 7, 2011). DOE reviewed product literature and
manufacturer Web sites to determine, on average, the number of
individual models that could be grouped together into representative
basic models. DOE determined that, for automatic commercial ice makers,
an average of eight individual models could be grouped into basic
models for the purposes of compliance with DOE's energy conservation
standards, thus reducing the number of models that would require
testing from 264 to 33. DOE's CCE requirements also require that each
model be tested twice. Using the provisions for basic model grouping
established in DOE's CCE final rule, DOE estimated the costs to small
businesses to be between $673,596 and $994,332 over the 5-year analysis
time horizon. The present value costs of this rulemaking on all small
businesses under this scenario are estimated at $475,126 to $701,360,
or $59,391 to $87,670 per small business, for an average annual cost of
$11,878 to $17,534.
The findings of the DOE analysis suggest that small business
manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers would not be
disproportionally impacted by the test procedure amendments, relative
to their competition. Testing procedures are required for each base
model and only models produced by manufacturers that are covered by
this rule would be required to be tested. DOE research indicates that
the small entities affected by this regulation produce fewer automatic
commercial ice makers, on average, when compared to larger businesses.
Small businesses manufacture, on average, 264 individual models and 33
basic models covered by this rule, while large businesses manufacture
an average of 2,176 individual models and 272 basic models. Thus, small
businesses are subject to fewer testing procedures, and testing costs
for large businesses are estimated to be approximately 8.2 times higher
than costs for small businesses. DOE has, therefore, concluded that
large and small entities would incur a

[[Page 1611]]

proportional distribution of costs associated with the new testing
requirements.
DOE conducted an analysis to measure the maximum testing cost
burden relative to the gross profits of small manufacturers. The costs
used in this analysis are the total cost to small businesses if they
were to test each individual model, as presented in Table IV.2. DOE
notes that these testing costs could be reduced by grouping individual
models into basic models for the purpose of certification with existing
energy conservation standards, as explained above. The analysis
utilized financial data gathered from other public sources to derive
the average annual gross profits of the small businesses impacted by
this rule. The average industry gross profit margin was estimated at
29.0 percent.\10\ The annualized costs associated with this rulemaking
were then compared to estimated gross profits to determine the
magnitude of the cost impacts of this regulation on small businesses.
Based on this analysis, DOE estimates that the total increase in
testing burden amounts to approximately 0.5 to 0.7 percent of gross
profit for the small manufacturers affected by this rule. DOE further
estimates that the cost burden of the testing procedures is equal to
approximately 0.1 to 0.2 percent of average annual sales ($8.9 million
\11\) per small entity affected by this regulation. DOE concludes that
these values do not represent a significant economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ BizStats. Free Business Statistics and Financial Ratios.
Industry Income-Expense Statements. (Last accessed February 17,
2011.) <http://www.bizstats.com/corporation-industry-financials/manufacturing-31/machinery-manufacturing-333/ventilation-heating-a-c-and-commercial-refrigeration-equipment-333410/show>.
\11\ Calculated based on data obtained from http://www.manta.com
and Dun and Bradstreet reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the criteria outlined above, DOE continues to certify that
the test procedure amendments would not have a ``significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' DOE has transmitted
the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers must certify to
DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy
conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must
test their equipment according to the DOE test procedure for automatic
commercial ice makers, including any amendments adopted for the test
procedure. DOE has established regulations for the certification and
record-keeping requirements for all covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers. 76 FR
12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for
the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval
by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has
been approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1910-1400. Public
reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours
per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for automatic
commercial ice makers. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a
class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this
rule amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality, or
distribution of energy usage, and therefore will not result in any
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999),
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR at 13735. DOE examined this final rule and
determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
equipment that is the subject of today's final rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

[[Page 1612]]

review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final
rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

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

Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA)
Section 32 provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the NOPR must
inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In
addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on competition.
This final rule incorporates testing methods contained in the
following commercial standards:
1. AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1, which supersedes AHRI
Standard 810-2003, ``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Automatic
Commercial Ice Makers,'' section 3, ``Definitions,'' section 4, ``Test
Requirements,'' and section 5, ``Rating Requirements'' into 10 CFR
431.134(b); and
2. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, which supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005), ``Method of Testing Automatic Ice Makers,''
10 CFR 431.134(b) and (b)(2).
DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman
of the FTC about the impact on competition of using the methods
contained in these standards and has received no comments objecting to
their use.

M. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 1613]]

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 20, 2011.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
title 10, Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Section 431.132 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of ``batch type ice maker,'' ``continuous type ice maker,''
and ``ice hardness factor,'' and revising the definitions of ``cube
type ice'' and ``energy use'' to read as follows:

Sec. 431.132 Definitions concerning automatic commercial ice makers.

* * * * *
Batch type ice maker means an ice maker having alternate freezing
and harvesting periods. This includes automatic commercial ice makers
that produce cube type ice and other batch technologies. Referred to as
cubes type ice maker in AHRI 810 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.133).
Continuous type ice maker means an ice maker that continually
freezes and harvests ice at the same time.
Cube type ice means ice that is fairly uniform, hard, solid,
usually clear, and generally weighs less than two ounces (60 grams) per
piece, as distinguished from flake, crushed, or fragmented ice. Note
that this conflicts and takes precedence over the definition
established in AHRI 810 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.133),
which indicates that ``cube'' does not reference a specific size or
shape.
Energy use means the total energy consumed, stated in kilowatt
hours per one-hundred pounds (kWh/100 lb) of ice stated in multiples of
0.1. For remote condensing (but not remote compressor) automatic
commercial ice makers and remote condensing and remote compressor
automatic commercial ice makers, total energy consumed shall include
the energy use of the ice-making mechanism, the compressor, and the
remote condenser or condensing unit.
* * * * *
Ice hardness factor means the latent heat capacity of harvested
ice, in British thermal units per pound of ice (Btu/lb), divided by 144
Btu/lb, expressed as a percent.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 431.133 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 431.133 Materials incorporated by reference.

(a) General. We incorporate by reference the following standards
into Subpart H of Part 431. The material listed has been approved for
incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent
amendment to a standard by the standard-setting organization will not
affect the DOE regulations unless and until amended by DOE. Material is
incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval and a notice of
any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register.
All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. Also, this
material is available for inspection at National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Standards can be obtained from the sources listed below.
(b) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800,
ahri@ahrinet.org, or http://www.ahrinet.org.
(1) AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1, (``AHRI 810''),
Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice-Makers, March 2011; IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 431.132 and 431.134.
(2) [Reserved].
(c) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA
30329, (404) 636-8400, ashrae@ashrae.org, or http://www.ashrae.org.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 29''), Method of
Testing Automatic Ice Makers, (including Errata Sheets issued April 8,
2010 and April 21, 2010), approved January 28, 2009; IBR approved for
Sec. 431.134.
(2) [Reserved].

0
4. Section 431.134 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 431.134 Uniform test methods for the measurement of energy and
water consumption of automatic commercial ice makers.

(a) Scope. This section provides the test procedures for measuring,
pursuant to EPCA, the energy use in kilowatt hours per 100 pounds of
ice (kWh/100 lb ice) and the condenser water use in gallons per 100
pounds of ice (gal/100 lb ice) of automatic commercial ice makers with
capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours.
(b) Testing and Calculations. Measure the energy use and the
condenser water use of each covered product by conducting the test
procedures set forth in AHRI 810, section 3, ``Definitions,'' section
4, ``Test Requirements,'' and section 5, ``Rating Requirements''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.133). Where AHRI 810
references ``ASHRAE Standard 29,'' ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.133) shall be used. All
references to cube type ice makers in AHRI 810 apply to all batch type
automatic commercial ice makers.
(1) For batch type automatic commercial ice makers, the energy use
and condenser water use will be reported as measured in this paragraph
(b), including the energy and water consumption, as applicable, of the
ice-making mechanism, the compressor, and the condenser or condensing
unit.
(2)(i) For continuous type automatic commercial ice makers,
determine the energy use and condenser water use by multiplying the
energy consumption or condenser water use as measured in this paragraph
(b) by the ice hardness adjustment factor, determined using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JA12.048

[[Page 1614]]

(ii) Determine the ice hardness factor by following the procedure
specified in the ``Procedure for Determining Ice Quality'' in section
A.3 of normative annex A of ANSI/ASHRAE 29 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 431.133), except that the test shall be conducted at an
ambient air temperature of 70 [deg]F 1 [deg]F, with an
initial water temperature of 90 [deg]F 1 [deg]F, and
weights shall be accurate to within 2 percent of the
quantity measured. The ice hardness factor is equivalent to the
corrected net cooling effect per pound of ice, line 19 in ANSI/ASHRAE
29 Table A1, where the calorimeter constant used in line 18 shall be
that determined in section A2 using seasoned, block ice.

[FR Doc. 2012-218 Filed 1-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P