[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46908-46938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18801]
[[Page 46907]]
Vol. 79
Monday,
No. 154
August 11, 2014
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Refrigerated Bottled or
Canned Beverage Vending Machines; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46908]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045]
RIN 1904-AD07
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Refrigerated
Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to amend its test
procedure for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines
(BVM) in order to update the referenced method of test to ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2010, eliminate the requirement to test at the 90 [deg]F
ambient test condition, create a provision for testing at the lowest
application product temperature, and incorporate provisions to account
for the impact of low power modes on measured daily energy consumption
(DEC). This notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) also proposes several
amendments and clarifications to the DOE test procedure to improve the
repeatability and remove ambiguity from the current BVM test procedure.
DOE will hold a public meeting to receive and discuss comments on this
NOPR.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NOPR before and after the public meeting, but no later than October 27,
2014. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for details.
DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, September 16, 2014, from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast
as a Webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar
registration information, participant instructions, and information
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room GH-019, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at
(202) 586-2945. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. For
more information, refer to the Public Participation section near the
end of this notice.
Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number and/
or RIN in the subject line of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed
copies.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document
(Public Participation).
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/24. 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
Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. See
section V for information on how to submit comments through
regulations.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590, Email: [email protected].
In the Office of General Counsel, contact Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-71, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-1777,
Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
III. Discussion
A. Minor Clarifications and Amendments to the DOE Test Procedure
1. Updating the Referenced Method of Test
2. Eliminating Testing at the 90 [deg]F Ambient Test Condition
3. Test Procedure for Combination Vending Machines
4. Loading of BVM Models When Conducting the DOE Test Procedure
5. Specifying the Characteristics of the Standard Product
6. Clarifying the Next-to-Vend Beverage Temperature Test
Condition
7. Defining ``Fully Cooled''
8. Placement of Thermocouples During Testing
9. Establishing Testing Provisions at the Lowest Application
Product Temperature
10. Clarifications to Certification and Reporting Requirements
11. Treatment of Certain Accessories During Testing
a. Money-Processing Equipment
b. Interior Lighting
c. External Customer Display Signs, Lights, or Digital Screens
d. Anti-Sweat and Other Electric Resistance Heaters
e. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps
f. Illuminated Temperature Displays
g. Condenser Filters
h. Security Covers
i. Coated Coils
j. General Purpose Outlets
k. Crankcase Heaters and Electric Resistance Heaters for Cold
Weather
B. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions to Account for Low
Power Modes
1. Characteristics of Low Power Modes
2. Comments Received by Interested Parties
3. DOE's Proposed Low Power Mode Test Provisions
a. Definitions Related to the Low Power Mode Test Procedure
b. Potential Low Power Mode Test Methods Based on Physical
Testing
c. Potential Low Power Mode Test Methods Using a Combination of
Physical Testing for Accessory Low Power Mode and Calculated Credits
for Refrigeration Low Power Mode
d. Refrigeration Low Power Mode Verification Test Protocol
[[Page 46909]]
e. DOE's Proposed Low Power Mode Test Method
f. Equipment with Multiple Energy Use States
IV. Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
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 the 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
V. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (``EPCA'' or ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309,
as codified) established the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.'' \2\ As part of this program, EPCA
directed DOE to prescribe energy conservation standards for
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines (BVMs), which
are the subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v)) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
\3\ Because Congress included BVMs in Part A of Title III of
EPCA, the consumer product provisions of Part A (not the industrial
equipment provisions of Part A-1) apply to BVMs. DOE placed the
regulatory requirements specific to BVMs in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), part 431, ``Energy Efficiency Program for
Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment'' as a matter of
administrative convenience based on their type and will refer to
BVMs as ``equipment'' throughout this document because of their
placement in 10 CFR part 431. Despite the placement of BVMs in 10
CFR part 431, the relevant provisions of Title A of EPCA and 10 CFR
part 430, which are applicable to all product types specified in
Title A of EPCA, are applicable to BVMs. See 74 FR 44914, 44917
(Aug. 31, 2009). DOE proposes to amend 10 CFR 431.291 to clarify
this point by specifying that the regulatory provisions of 10 CFR
430.33 and 430.34 and subparts D and E of 10 CFR part 430 are
applicable to BVMs. DOE notes that, because the procedures in Parts
430 and 431 for petitioning the Department for and obtaining a test
procedure waiver are substantively the same (79 FR 26591, 26601(May
9, 2014)) the regulations for applying for a test procedure waiver
for BVMs are those found at 10 CFR 431.401 rather than those found
at 430.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation
standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to
certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test
procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of each covered equipment type. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test
procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment
complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted
under EPCA, and when making representations about the efficiency of the
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use
these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with
any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment, including beverage vending machines. EPCA provides
in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or amended under
this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which
measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating
cost of a covered unit of equipment during a representative average use
cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, 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. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test
procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency or measured energy
use of any covered unit of equipment as determined under the existing
test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the
amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency or measured
energy use of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy
conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1), the Secretary of Energy (Secretary)
shall review test procedures for all covered products at least once
every 7 years and either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary
determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully
comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) or publish a
determination in the Federal Register not to amend them. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A))
Pursuant to this requirement, DOE has reviewed the BVM test
procedure and has determined that the test procedure could be amended
to improve testing accuracy of covered refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines. As such, DOE is proposing amendments to its
test procedure and presents these amendments in this NOPR.
B. Background
EPCA requires the test procedures for refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines to be based on American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 32.1-2004 (ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2004), ``Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines
for Bottled, Canned or Other Sealed Beverages.'' (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(15)) In December 2006, DOE published a final rule establishing
a test procedure for beverage vending machines, among other products
and equipment (the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule). 71 FR 71340,
71355 (Dec. 8, 2006). In that final rule, consistent with 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(15), DOE adopted ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 as the DOE test
procedure, with a modification to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 to
test equipment with dual nameplate voltages at the lower of the two
voltages only. 71 FR 71355 (Dec. 8, 2006).
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 specifies a method for determining
the capacity of vending machines, referred to as ``vendible capacity,''
which essentially consists of the maximum number of standard sealed
beverages a vending machine can hold for sale. In the 2006 BVM test
procedure final rule, however, DOE adopted the ``refrigerated volume''
measure in section 5.2, ``Refrigerated Volume Calculation,'' of ANSI/
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) HRF-1-2004 (ANSI/
AHAM HRF-1-2004) in addition to the ``vendible capacity'' measure, as
referred to in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. 71 FR 71355 (Dec. 8,
2006). DOE adopted ``refrigerated volume'' as
[[Page 46910]]
the primary measure of capacity for refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines because of the variety of dispensing
mechanisms and storage arrangements among similar machines that may
lead to potentially different refrigerated volumes for different
machines with the same vendible capacity. In addition, EPCA has
historically used upper limits on energy use as a function of volume
for the purposes of establishing energy conservation standards for
refrigeration equipment. Id.
In the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, DOE determined that
section 5.2 of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, which addresses the measurement of
refrigerated volume in household freezers, is also applicable to
beverage vending machines and is more appropriate than the language for
measurement of volume in household refrigerators of section 4.2 of
ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004. Specifically, section 5.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1-2004 includes provisions for specific compartments and features
that are typically found in refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machines, similar to what is found in freezers. Therefore, DOE
adopted ``refrigerated volume'' in lieu of ``vendible capacity'' as the
dimensional metric for beverage vending machines in the 2006 BVM test
procedure final rule. Id.
Since the publication of the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule,
ASHRAE has published an update to the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 test
procedure. The most recent version is ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010,
which includes changes aligning it with the nomenclature and
methodology used in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule (71 FR 71355
(Dec. 8, 2006)) and the 2009 BVM energy conservation standards final
rule (74 FR 44914 (Aug. 31, 2009)). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010
removes the definitions of ``bottled'' and ``canned'' and includes the
portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 that were incorporated by reference in
the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, in a new Appendix C for
measuring refrigerated volume. DOE believes that the aforementioned
changes are largely editorial and do not affect the method of test or
measured energy consumption values of any covered equipment.
AHAM has also updated its HRF-1 test standard since the publication
of the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule. The most recent version,
AHAM HRF-1-2008, includes changes to the refrigerated volume
measurement portion of the standard, reorganizes some sections for
simplicity and usability, and combines the sections for the measurement
of refrigerated volume of refrigerators and the measurement of the
refrigerated volume of freezers.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure for refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machines to update and clarify the
test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposes to (1) Update the referenced
method of test to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010; (2) eliminate the
requirement to test at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition; (3)
clarify the test procedure for combination vending machines; (4)
clarify the requirements for loading of BVM models under the DOE test
procedure; (5) specify the characteristics of a standard test package;
(6) clarify the average next-to-vend beverage temperature test
condition; (7) provide a definition of ``fully cooled;'' (8) specify
placement of thermocouples during the DOE test procedure; (9) establish
provisions for testing at the lowest application product temperature;
(10) clarify the certification and reporting requirements for covered
beverage vending machines; and (11) clarify the treatment of certain
accessories during the DOE test procedure. These proposed
clarifications and amendments would be effective 30 days after the
publication of a final rule amending the BVM test procedure in the
Federal Register. The clarified BVM test procedure will be placed in a
new appendix, Appendix A to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431. Manufacturers
will be required to use Appendix A to demonstrate compliance with
existing energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines.
In addition, this test procedure NOPR proposes amendments that are
intended to be used with the promulgation of any amended energy
conservation standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines and
will be included as a new Appendix B to subpart Q of 10 CFR 431. These
amendments include incorporating provisions to account for the impact
of low power modes.
Manufacturers would be required to use any amended test procedure
adopted in Appendix B to be in compliance with DOE's energy
conservation standards, as well as for labeling or other
representations as to the energy use of any covered equipment,
beginning on the compliance date of any final rule establishing amended
energy conservation standards for refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines that are set based on the amended test
procedure. The ongoing BVM energy conservation standards rulemaking
will use any amendments established as part of this test procedure
rulemaking in its energy conservation standards analyses and,
therefore, use of the test procedures established in Appendix B would
be required on the compliance date of the amended energy conservation
standards promulgated as a result of that rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0022). Prior to the compliance date of any such amended
standards, manufacturers must continue to use the test procedure found
in Appendix A to show compliance with existing DOE energy conservation
standards and for representations concerning the energy use of covered
equipment. However, manufacturers may elect to use the amended BVM test
procedure in Appendix B established as a result of this rulemaking
prior to its compliance date to demonstrate compliance with any future,
amended standards. Manufacturers who choose to use the amended test
procedure early must ensure that their equipment satisfies any
applicable amended energy conservation standards. In other words,
manufacturers may elect to use the amended test procedure only if they
also elect to comply with the amended energy conservation standards
prior to the established compliance date.
Finally, DOE is proposing amendments to 10 CFR 429.52(b) with
regards to reporting requirements, including a clarifying amendment
that the standard for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending
machines is based on DEC. DOE is also proposing similar clarifying
amendments to the energy conservation standards found in 10 CFR
431.296.
III. Discussion
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing several minor amendments to clarify
DOE's test procedure for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machines. DOE is also proposing several amendments related to
the impact of low power modes. To make clear the applicability of these
amendments, DOE is proposing to reorganize the existing DOE test
procedure into two new appendices, Appendix A and Appendix B, to 10 CFR
431.294.
Appendix A would contain the provisions established in the 2006 BVM
test procedure final rule and any clarifying amendments proposed in
this NOPR. Appendix A would be used beginning 30 days after publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register until the compliance date of
any amended standards.
[[Page 46911]]
The proposed amendments found in Appendix A are discussed in
Section III.A and include provisions in the following areas:
(1) Updating the referenced method of test to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1-2010;
(2) eliminating testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition;
(3) clarifying the test procedure for combination vending machines;
(4) clarifying the requirements for loading BVM models under the
DOE test procedure;
(5) clarifying the specifications of the test package;
(6) clarifying the next-to-vend beverage temperature test
condition;
(7) providing a definition for ``fully cooled;''
(8) specifying placement of thermocouples during the DOE test
procedure;
(9) establishing testing provisions at the lowest application
product temperature;
(10) clarifying certification and reporting requirements; and
(11) clarifying the treatment of certain accessories when
conducting the DOE test procedure.
Appendix B would include all of the amendments proposed in Appendix
A and, in addition, provisions for testing low power modes. The test
procedures found in Appendix B would be used in conjunction with any
amended standards set as a result of the ongoing BVM energy
conservation standard rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022).
Section III.B summarizes the proposed revisions to the test procedure
that would be included in the amended test procedure in Appendix B.
As part of the current rulemaking on the energy conservation
standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines, DOE held a public
meeting on June 20, 2013, to present its Framework document
(www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022-0001) and
to receive comments from interested parties.
In formulating today's NOPR, DOE considered the comments received
in response to the Framework document and incorporated recommendations,
where appropriate, that applied to the test procedure. Where
applicable, comments received in response to the BVM Framework document
that addressed DOE's proposed test procedure amendments are presented
in sections III.A and III.B, along with DOE's response and
justification.
In addition, DOE provides amendments to 10 CFR part 429,
``Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement for Consumer Products and
Commercial and Industrial Equipment,'' and part 431, subpart Q,
``Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines.''
A. Minor Clarifications and Amendments to the DOE Test Procedure
DOE held a public meeting on June 20, 2013, to present its
Framework document and to receive comments from interested parties. In
reviewing these comments and considering revisions to DOE's test
procedure for beverage vending machines, DOE determined that there are
several provisions of the DOE test procedure that may require
clarification. In order to clarify the Department's test procedures,
DOE proposes to amend subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431 by moving most of
the existing test procedures for refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines from 10 CFR 431.294 to a new Appendix A to
subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431. In Appendix A, DOE also proposes to
incorporate nine amendments to clarify and update the current DOE test
procedure for beverage vending machines. These clarifications and
amendments therefore would be effective 30 days after publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register. This section of the NOPR discusses
the specific test procedure provisions that require clarification,
DOE's proposed amendments, and the comments received on these topics.
1. Updating the Referenced Method of Test
The current DOE test procedure for refrigerated beverage vending
machines incorporates by reference two industry test procedures, ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, which established a
method of testing for beverage vending machines and a method for
determining refrigerated volume, respectively. Each of these industry
test procedures has been updated since the publication of the DOE test
procedure in 2006. The most current versions are ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1-2010 and AHAM HRF-1-2008.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 was amended from the 2004 version to
include new definitions and nomenclature established by DOE in the 2009
BVM final rule. These changes include removing references to specific
sealed-bottle package designs such as ``bottled'' or ``canned,''
revising the scope, and incorporating a new Appendix C, ``Measurement
of Volume,'' which consists of certain portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004
for measuring the refrigerated volume. Specifically, ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2004 incorporated the portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004
currently referenced in the DOE test procedure, section 5.2 (excluding
subsections 5.2.2.2 through 5.2.2.4), which describes the method for
determining refrigerated volume for residential freezers, as well as
section 5.1, which describes the purpose of the section. These new
amendments make the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 test procedure
identical to the DOE test procedure established in the 2006 BVM test
procedure final rule. As the amendments to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2010 are primarily editorial, they do not affect the tested DEC of
covered equipment. DOE is proposing to update the industry test method
incorporated by reference to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 for the
measurement of DEC and vendible capacity.
In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE requested comment regarding
adoption of an updated test procedure for refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines. During the comment period, DOE
received no opposing comments to this proposal. Royal Vendors, Inc.
(Royal) and the National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA)
commented in support of updating the DOE test procedure to reference
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 3; \4\ NAMA, No. 8
at p. 2) Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. (AMS) commented that it
had no objection to the use of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010
standard. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) Royal and NAMA commented that the test
procedure should use ANSI-approved technical standards because
deviations from portions of standards create confusion regarding
clarity of test results, create an unfair advantage for underperforming
models and manufacturers, and create potential for confusion among
consumers attempting to understand and compare the tested performance
of different BVM models. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 4; and NAMA, No. 8 at p.
3) Royal also commented that any changes made to the test procedure
should be within the confines of the ASHRAE standard because that
standard is established
[[Page 46912]]
from a consensus process and reliance on it will prevent confusion from
varying test standards. (Royal No. 7 at p. 31)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information
that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures
for beverage vending machines (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). This particular
notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Royal Vendors, Inc.;
(2) appearing in document number 11 of the docket; and (3) appearing
on page 3 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requires the test procedures for refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines to be based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1-2004. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(15)) In addition, EPCA requires DOE to
develop test procedures that represent an average energy use cycle or
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) When an industry test procedure
does not adequately represent the energy use of a covered unit of
equipment under a representative cycle of use, DOE has the authority to
amend the test procedure with respect to that covered equipment type if
DOE determines that the amended test procedure would more accurately or
fully reflect the representative use of that product, without being
unduly burdensome. (42 U.S.C 6293(b)(1)) DOE believes that certain
amendments are necessary to adequately characterize the energy use of
covered BVM models, as discussed in section III.B.
Since DOE published the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, AHAM
has released a new version of the AHAM HRF-1 test method, which
reorganizes and simplifies the test method as presented in ANSI/AHAM
HRF-1-2004. The revised AHAM HRF-1 test method, ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2008,
combines sections 4, 5, and 6, which relate to measuring the
refrigerated volume of refrigerators and freezers, into one section
describing methods for determining the refrigerated volume of
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, wine chillers, and freezers. This
unified and simplified method includes several changes regarding the
inclusion or exclusion of certain special features from the
determination of refrigerated volume such that DOE believes AHAM HRF-1-
2008 has the potential to yield refrigerated volume values that differ
slightly from those taken using the method in the current DOE test
procedure. DOE considered proposing to adopt AHAM HRF-1-2008 as the
method for computing refrigerated volume in the amended test procedure.
DOE does not believe, however, that the updated AHAM HRF-1-2008 test
procedure has sufficient additional merit compared to the volume
calculation method included in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 to
justify the additional burden on manufacturers. Instead, DOE proposes
to adopt Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 as the volume
measurement methodology in its amended test procedure. Adopting
Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 will allow manufacturers
to reference a single document containing all information needed to
conduct the DOE test procedure. As such, DOE proposes to remove ANSI/
AHAM HRF-1-2004 from the documents incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
431.293.
In response to the 2013 BVM Framework document, AMS commented that
the AHAM volume calculation is difficult to evaluate for its type of
equipment. (AMS, No. 7 at p. 79) DOE understands AMS's comment, but
notes that the determination of volume must be consistent for all
covered equipment to allow for comparability and consistent application
of the standards across equipment. DOE notes that if the method for
determining refrigerated volume is inappropriate or impossible for any
BVM basic models, the manufacturer of that equipment should request a
waiver in accordance with the provisions in subpart V to 10 CFR part
431. Any petitioner for a waiver of a test procedure should note why
the volume calculation in the DOE test procedure cannot be applied and
include any alternate test procedure known to the petitioner. See
section 431.401 of 10 CFR part 431 for the requirements of submitting
petitions for waiver of test procedures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE recently issued a final rule amending its regulations
governing petitions for waiver and interim waiver from DOE test
procedures for consumer products and commercial and industrial
equipment. 79 FR 26591 (May 9, 2014). This final rule carries an
effective date of June 9, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on the proposal to update its test procedure
to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the referenced
method of test for the measurement of refrigerated volume in its test
procedure from section 5 of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 to Appendix C of ANSI/
ASHRAE 3.1-2010.
DOE requests comment on whether the methodology in Appendix C of
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 for the measurement of refrigerated
volume is more appropriate for beverage vending machines than the
methodology outlined in section 4 of AHAM HRF-1-2008.
2. Eliminating Testing at the 90 [deg]F Ambient Test Condition
Both ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, the test method incorporated
by reference in the current DOE test procedure, and ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2010, the test method DOE proposes to incorporate by
reference in the amended test procedure as discussed in section
III.A.1, specify two tests: one at an ambient condition of 75 [deg]F
2 [deg]F temperature and 45 percent 5 percent
relative humidity (``the 75 [deg]F ambient test condition''), and the
other at an ambient condition of 90 [deg]F 2 [deg]F
temperature and 65 percent 5 percent relative humidity
(``the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition''). By incorporating by
reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, DOE's current test procedure
for refrigerated beverage vending machines requires testing at both the
75 [deg]F ambient test condition and 90 [deg]F ambient test condition.
In the energy conservation standards rulemaking that culminated in the
2009 BVM final rule, however, DOE determined to use only the 75 [deg]F
ambient test condition for the purposes of demonstrating compliance
with applicable energy conservation standards. The data taken at the 90
[deg]F ambient test condition are not used for DOE regulatory purposes.
74 FR 44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009).
In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE requested comment on
eliminating the requirement to test units at the 90 [deg]F ambient test
condition. NAMA and Royal agreed with the elimination of the test
method using the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition. (NAMA, No. 8 at p.
2; Royal, No. 11 at p. 3) AMS and the Wittern Group, Inc. (Wittern)
agreed with the elimination of the requirement to test at 90 [deg]F
ambient test condition. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 2; Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2)
Wittern added that it did not see any benefit in rating machines at two
temperatures and that the change would benefit the consumer by making
it easier to compare machines. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2)
The California Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) opposed the
complete elimination of the methodology used to measure performance at
the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition, stating that the 90 [deg]F
ambient test condition better evaluates the performance of equipment
installed outdoors and requested that DOE maintain it for Class B
equipment.\6\ (CA
[[Page 46913]]
IOUs, No. 19 at pp. 4 and 5) The CA IOUs further requested that the
Class B equipment MDEC at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition be
included in DOE's Compliance Certification Database because such
information would be useful to consumers and purchasers of Class B
units to be installed in outdoor settings. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5)
The Joint Comment \7\ encouraged DOE to maintain the requirement to
test Class B units at 90 [deg]F because the 75 [deg]F ambient test may
not adequately reflect the performance of units installed outdoors and
noted that performance at high ambient temperatures may become a more
significant issue with the increased adoption of alternative
refrigerants. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 1) The Joint Comment
encouraged DOE to maintain the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition for
Class B machines and require the associated MDEC to be reported and
included in the Compliance Certification Database for the use of
customers purchasing units to be installed outdoors and energy
efficiency program managers. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOE defines a Class B refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machine to mean any refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machine not considered to be Class A, and is not a
combination vending machine. DOE defines a Class A refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine as any refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is fully cooled and
is not a combination vending machine. (See 10 CFR 431.292) Class B
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines are,
therefore, not fully-cooled machines and are typically referred to
in the industry as ``zone-cooled.'' DOE found in its preliminary
analysis for the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking
that class B machines are often installed outside (DOE estimates
that about 25% are installed outside), whereas Class A machines are
rarely, if ever, installed outside.
\7\ Joint Comment refers to the written comment submitted by the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the Alliance to Save Energy,
the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council in Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs also commented that it assumes manufacturers are
continuing to test at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition, which
remains in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1, to satisfy the requirements of
the industry-developed test procedure and to understand how their
equipment performs at these conditions. Therefore, according to the CA
IOUs, there would be little additional test burden created by
continuing to require testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient condition in the
DOE test procedure because manufacturers will already be testing at 90
[deg]F for industry purposes. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5) Finally, the CA
IOUs submitted to DOE two reports prepared by testing laboratories at
Southern California Edison to further DOE's understanding of the effect
of ambient temperature on BVM energy use, and further commented that
energy use was increased by almost 25 percent for an opaque door
machine and almost 50 percent for a transparent door unit tested at a
higher ambient temperature. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5)
DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure to eliminate the
requirement to perform a test at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition
as described in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1-2010. DOE understands that the 90 [deg]F test is used primarily to
represent and evaluate the performance of some units that may be
installed outdoors; however, as mentioned above, the performance of a
beverage vending machine at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition is not
currently used for DOE regulatory purposes and is not required to be
reported to demonstrate compliance of covered equipment. Therefore, DOE
does not see a need to maintain the 90 [deg]F test condition as part of
the DOE test procedure.
In response to the Joint Comment's concern regarding increasing use
of alternative refrigerants, DOE acknowledges that equipment with
carbon dioxide refrigerant, which have recently become available in the
U.S. market, may in general have significantly different energy
performance characteristics at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition
when compared to machines with hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants
such as HFC-134a. However, as conditions above 75 [deg]F and conditions
below 75 [deg]F are equally representative of conditions encountered by
equipment installed in the United States, DOE maintains that the 75
[deg]F ambient test condition is a suitable rating condition and
represents the average use cycle of the equipment.
DOE believes removing the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition test
requirement will reduce manufacturer burden associated with its test
procedure by eliminating testing that does not significantly increase
the accuracy or representativeness of the DOE test procedure and is
unnecessary for demonstrating compliance with DOE's energy conservation
standards.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to eliminate the requirement
to conduct testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition.
3. Test Procedure for Combination Vending Machines
In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE requested comment regarding
the use of the current DOE test procedure to evaluate the energy use of
combination vending machines. In response to the Framework document,
DOE received several comments regarding the development of a test
procedure for combination vending machines. AMS commented that it
manufactures combination machines in a variety of different
configurations and that testing these configured as Class A machines,
if the machine design allows, would result in the highest energy
consumption possible for the model. AMS added that, for combination
vending machines tested configured as Class A machines, the current DOE
test procedure and MDEC for Class A machines can be applied without any
loss of program integrity. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 4) NAMA commented that
machines currently classified under the regulations as refrigerated can
and bottle vending machines are inherently different than combination
machines, which, unlike traditional can and bottle vending machines,
are in most cases designed to dispense perishable products and food
items in countless machine configurations. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 5) The CA
IOUs commented that DOE should consider updates to the test procedure
to accurately measure the efficiency of combination machines. (CA IOUs,
No. 19 at p. 3) Wittern commented that combination vending machines can
be part of Class A if they are tested in the worst case condition,
fully cooling the refrigerated compartment, since the machine is not
going to consume more energy when it is only partially cooling the
compartment. (Wittern, No. 16. at p. 2)
Based on the comments received, DOE has determined that there may
be confusion about what constitutes a combination vending machine for
the purposes of DOE's energy conservation standards. To clarify, DOE
notes that a combination vending machine is defined as a refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine that also has non-
refrigerated volumes for the purpose of vending other, non-``sealed
beverage'' merchandise. 10 CFR 431.292 Based on this definition, any
machine (a) that upon payment dispenses beverages in sealed containers
and (b) in which the entire internal storage volume is refrigerated, is
not a combination vending machine. For example, a piece of equipment
that is designed to vend sealed beverages and other products with an
entirely refrigerated internal storage volume, would be a covered Class
A refrigerated beverage vending machine and should be tested
accordingly. Such equipment would be a covered Class A beverage vending
machine even if the portions of the machine that vend sealed beverages
and other products are physically separated, provided they are both
refrigerated.
Regarding the test procedure for combination vending machines, DOE
believes that its current test procedure is appropriate for the
evaluation of the refrigerated volume, vendible capacity, and energy
use of combination vending machines. Similarly, DOE believes the
amendments to the BVM test procedure
[[Page 46914]]
proposed in this NOPR are equally applicable to combination vending
machines. DOE notes, however, that the application of the BVM test
procedure may require clarification as to how it is applied to
combination vending machines. For example, in combination vending
machines, only the refrigerated compartment would be evaluated in the
refrigerated volume calculation, while the vendible capacity would be
that of both refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments. The non-
refrigerated compartment would not be accounted for in the refrigerated
volume determination. Similarly, standard test packages would be placed
in the next-to-vend position only in the refrigerated portion of the
refrigerated beverage vending machine and only the refrigerated portion
of the combination vending machine would be required to be fully loaded
to capacity. However, any lighting or other energy-consuming features
in the non-refrigerated compartment would be fully energized during the
test procedure and operated in the same manner as any lighting or
features in the refrigerated compartment (see section III.A.11.b and
III.B.1). Therefore, the total energy use of the machine during the 24-
hour test would comprise the DEC, as measured in accordance with ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 or ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. DOE
proposes to add these clarifications to the DOE test procedure at 10
CFR 431.294 for combination vending machines.
DOE requests comment on the applicability of the existing test
procedure, as clarified, to combination vending machines.
4. Loading of BVM Models When Conducting the DOE Test Procedure
In reviewing the current test procedure for refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines and, in particular, in reviewing the
comments submitted regarding the applicability of the BVM test
procedure to combination vending machines, DOE determined that the
loading requirements for Class A and Class B machines are not clearly
and unambiguously specified in the current DOE test procedure.
Therefore, DOE proposes to add language to the BVM test procedure to
clarify the loading requirements for covered Class A and Class B
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines that are
offered in a variety of configurations and may be capable of vending
other refrigerated merchandise. Specifically, DOE proposes to amend the
regulatory text to clarify that any Class A or Class B beverage vending
machine that is available with a variety of product storage
configurations should be configured, for purposes of testing, to hold
the maximum number of sealed beverages that it is capable of
accommodating per manufacturer specifications. For example, if some
areas of the machine can be configured either to vend sealed beverages
or to vend other refrigerated merchandise, the equipment should be
configured and loaded with the maximum number of sealed beverages for
testing. Tests conducted with other configurations may produce
different results because of the decrease in thermal mass in the
refrigerated space. The performance at the maximum beverage
configuration may be used to represent the performance of other
configurations of a basic model of covered equipment which differ in
placement and type of shelving only. However, if a manufacturer wishes
to make differing representations regarding the energy consumption of a
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine in various
shelving configurations, the manufacturer may elect to test and certify
each unique shelving configuration as a separate basic model.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For purposes of BVMs, basic model means all units of a
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine(or class
thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary
energy source, and which have essentially identical electrical,
physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy
consumption or energy efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.292. If differing
shelving configurations affect the energy consumption, these
differing configurations should be considered different basic
models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE proposes to add language to the DOE test procedure in Appendix
A and Appendix B to clarify the loading requirements for covered BVM
models.
5. Specifying the Characteristics of the Standard Product
When testing a BVM model in accordance with the DOE test procedure,
the equipment is to be loaded with the maximum quantity of standard
product and with standard test packages in each next-to-be-vended
position for each selection, as required by section 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2
of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and 2010. Section 5 of ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2004 and 2010 further requires that the standard product
shall be 12-ounce cans for machines that are capable of dispensing 12-
ounce cans. For all other machines, the standard product shall be the
product specified by the manufacturer as the standard product.
The DOE test procedure does not provide any further specificity
regarding the characteristics of the standard product when conducting
the DOE test procedure, or the manufacture of standard test packages.
DOE understands that there may be variability among manufacturers and
testing laboratories with regard to the configuration of standard
product and standard test packages. DOE believes that such variability
may result in minor inconsistencies in test results. As such, DOE
proposes to clarify the characteristics of the standard product and
standard test package to ensure test results are as consistent and
repeatable as possible.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to add text to the BVM test procedure in
Appendix A and Appendix B, that the standard product shall be standard
12-ounce aluminum beverage cans filled with a liquid with a density of
1.0 grams per milliliter (g/mL) 0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines that are not
capable of holding 12-ounce cans, but are capable of vending 20-ounce
bottles, the standard product shall be 20-ounce plastic bottles filled
with a liquid with a density of 1.0 g/mL 0.1 g/mL at 36
[deg]F. For refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines
that are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles, the
product specified by the manufacturer as the standard product shall
continue to be used.
DOE selected a density range of 1.0 g/mL 0.1 g/mL as
it is inclusive of most test fluids used today. For example, this
density range includes water, diet and regular soda, fruit juices, and
propylene glycol/water mixtures up to 50/50 percent by volume. In
addition, Fischer-Nickel conducted research in 2004 comparing the
temperature measurements of standard test packages constructed in the
manner specified by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1, as compared to the test
packages described in ASHRAE Standard 117-2002, which are 1-pint
plastic test packages filled with a 50/50 mixture of water and
propylene glycol, and found little variation in measured temperatures
with the different test package materials and fluids.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Cowen, D. and Zabrowski, D. 2004. ``Application and
Evaluation of ASHRAE 117-2002 and ASHRAE 32.1-1997.'' FSTC Report
# 5011.04.01. Fischer-Nickel, Inc. Available at: http://www.fishnick.com/publications/appliancereports/refrigeration/Application_of_ASHRAE_117_and_32.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3 of ASHRAE 32.1-2004 and 2010 defines the standard test
package as a beverage container of the size and shape for which the
vending machine is designed, altered to include a temperature-measuring
instrument at its
[[Page 46915]]
center of mass. DOE finds the requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1-2004 and 2010 to be fairly clear and concise, when paired with the
clarification above regarding the standard product. And, as such, DOE
is not proposing additional clarifications beyond the proposed
clarification that the standard product shall be 12-ounce cans or 20-
ounce bottles, for BVM models that are capable of holding cans or
bottles, respectively, filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 g/mL
0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F.
DOE requests comment on the need to maintain the flexibility of
specifying the standard product as that specified by the manufacturer
for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines that are
not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles. DOE
specifically requests examples of BVM models that might require this
flexibility and what type of standard products they are tested with
currently.
DOE requests comment on the sufficiency of the existing
requirements regarding standard test packages. If the existing language
is not sufficiently clear, DOE requests comments and recommendations
regarding what additional clarifications might be necessary to ensure
consistency and repeatability of test results.
6. Clarifying the Next-to-Vend Beverage Temperature Test Condition
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, the test method incorporated by
reference in the current DOE test procedure, states, ``the beverage
temperature shall be measured in standard test packages in each next-
to-be-vended position for each selection.'' ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2004 specifies an average next-to-vend temperature of 36 [deg]F 1 [deg]F ``throughout test.'' The beverage temperature
requirements of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 test method, which
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference into its test procedure as
part of this NOPR, are identical to those of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2004.
DOE has become aware of a need to clarify whether the next-to-vend
temperature specification of 36 [deg]F 1 [deg]F
``throughout test'' refers to a condition in which the average next-to-
vend temperature is maintained at 36 [deg]F 1 [deg]F
constantly for the duration of the test, or one in which the
temperature of next-to-vend beverages is averaged across all selections
and over the entire length of the test, resulting in a single value of
36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F).
In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE requested comments on its
consideration of clarifying the intent of the terminology ``throughout
test'' with regard to maintaining the average next-to-vend temperature
at 36 [deg]F 1 [deg]F in the DOE test procedure.
Specifically, in the Framework document, DOE discussed clarifying the
next-to-vend temperature condition as one where the average of all
beverages in the next-to-vend position is maintained at 36 [deg]F
1 [deg]F at all times throughout the test. 78 FR 33262
(June 4, 2013). In response, DOE received a variety of comments. Royal
and NAMA did not support this clarification, stating that DOE should
average the temperature data across all next-to-vend selections and
over the entire test period because there is no evidence that
variations in temperatures will impact energy use as long as the
temperature is averaged for the test period. Royal and NAMA further
stated that vending machines have varying defrost schemes, and the
individual next-to-vend selections or their average temperature may
migrate outside the 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F) range during
defrost or other changes in refrigeration state. (Royal, No. 11 at p.
3; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 2) Royal also commented that while the current
1 [deg]F tolerance is adequate, a one-sided tolerance
(allowing temperatures to go below 35 [deg]F but not above 37 [deg]F)
would provide more design freedom. (Royal, No. 7 at p. 53)
Additionally, Wittern commented that it contacted ASHRAE, which
provided interpretations from two former ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1
committee members that the temperature value to be used is the average
of all test packages and not a tolerance applied to a single test
package. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 1) Wittern further commented that the
current design is that the next-to-vend beverages in stack machines are
the first hit with the cold air and that maintaining the average
product temperature ( 1 [deg]F) for each product in a stack
machine would require major redesign to have all beverages hit equally
with the supply air. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 1) AMS stated that holding
60 or 70 cans within 1 [deg]F is nearly impossible and
would mean a dramatic increase in price. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) AMS
stated that if such a specification is deemed necessary,
10 [deg]F would be more appropriate. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) AMS also
noted that because the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 test method specifies
an accuracy of 1 [deg]F for temperature measurement
equipment, temperature measurements can probably only be expected to
record a 5 [deg]F tolerance range with reasonable
certainty. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1)
DOE acknowledges commenters' concerns that maintaining each
individual beverage within a 1 [deg]F tolerance is
unnecessarily rigorous and is not the intent of the DOE test procedure.
DOE agrees with commenters that the average next-to-vend temperature
should be both a spatial and temporal average. To remove any ambiguity
from this requirement, DOE is proposing to clarify its test procedure
by explicitly stating that the temperature of next-to-vend beverages
shall be averaged across all next-to-vend beverages and over the entire
time of the test, resulting in a single value of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F). Specifically, DOE proposes to incorporate a
definition of integrated average temperature to read as follows
integrated average temperature means the average of all standard test
package measurements in the next-to-vend beverage positions taken
during the test, expressed in degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F).
This clarification aligns with the general methodology for
determining the temperature of internal refrigerated volumes for
commercial refrigeration equipment and, as such, should be understood
by the BVM industry to be a time-averaged value.
DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of ``integrated
average temperature'' for beverage vending machines.
DOE requests comment on whether the proposed definition for
``integrated average temperature'' aligns with standard practice in
industry, and whether any manufacturers have instead been maintaining
the 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F) next-to-vend temperature
constantly throughout the test used for DOE certification.
7. Defining ``Fully Cooled''
The 2009 BVM final rule established DOE energy conservation
standards for beverage vending machines in two equipment classes: Class
A and Class B refrigerated beverage vending machines. 74 FR 44914,
44968 (Aug. 31, 2009). The distinguishing criterion between these two
equipment classes is whether or not equipment is fully cooled. 10 CFR
431.292.
DOE regulations, however, have never included a definition for the
term ``fully cooled.'' In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE included
a suggested definition for consideration and comment. The definition
under consideration for fully cooled beverage in the 2013 BVM Framework
document means a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending
machine within which each item in the beverage vending machine is
brought to and stored at temperatures that fall within 2
[deg]F of the average beverage temperature, which is the average of the
[[Page 46916]]
temperatures of all the items in the next-to-vend position for each
selection.
DOE received comments regarding the definition of ``fully cooled''
in response to the 2013 BVM Framework document. AMS commented that the
strict temperature control ( 2 [deg]F) proposed in the
framework definition is not practical, and probably impossible to
achieve, and that temperatures vary widely, possibly as much as 10 [deg]F, from front to rear and top to bottom in today's
machines. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 6) AMS agreed with the rationale of the
proposal, but stated that data taken from products not in the next-to-
vend positions should only be used to determine whether such products
are being cooled, without a strict temperature restriction. (AMS, No.
17 at p. 6) AMS suggested that if such products are at least 20 [deg]F
below the ambient temperature, the machine should be considered fully
cooled. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 2) AMS suggested that plus or minus six
degrees might be a more appropriate range. (AMS, No. 7 at p. 51) AMS
went on to say that it understood the current definition of ``fully
cooled'' as meaning that the machine's inherent design is based on an
attempt to equally cool all products within the machine and thought
that this is generally the interpretation used by the rest of the
industry as well. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 6)
Wittern commented that its opaque-front beverage machines are zone-
cooled for the most part, and that it believes the current equipment
classes could be simplified to glass fronts with trays for Class A and
closed fronts with stacks for Class B. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2)
Royal proposed to define a fully cooled vending machine as one in
which the average temperature of all items in the next-to-vend position
is within 1 [deg]F during the 24-hour test period as
defined in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 7)
Royal also commented that DOE should stay within established and
approved standards for definition purposes, rather than trying to
define new standards and classifications. (Royal, No. 5 at p. 50) NAMA
stated that they agreed with the current definition of ``fully cooled
vending machine'' as they believe is specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1-2010. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 8) AMS agreed that a definition of fully
cooled based on average next-to-vend temperatures across the face of
the machine would be better than a temperature band for each beverage.
(AMS, No. 17 at p. 57)
The CA IOUs stated DOE should consider including a definition for
zone-cooled if it is used in the definition of Class B equipment. (CA
IOUs, No. 19 at p. 2) The CA IOUs requested that DOE work to establish
a more descriptive definition of Class B equipment that describes them
as what they are, which the CA IOUs understand to be zone-cooled,
rather than by what they are not, to prevent confusion for marketplace
actors who may not be familiar with the equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at
p. 2)
In light of the comments received, DOE is proposing the following
definition of ``fully cooled'' which means a condition in which the
refrigeration system of a beverage vending machine cools product
throughout the entire refrigerated volume of a machine instead of being
directed at a fraction (or zone) of the refrigerated volume as measured
by the average temperature of the standard test packages in the
furthest from the next-to-vend positions is no more than 10 [deg]F
above the integrated average temperature of the standard test packages.
This definition is predicated upon the different methods of cooling
used in Class A and Class B machines and the customer utility provided
by fully cooling the refrigerated space. Maintaining all refrigerated
beverages within 10 [deg]F of the next-to-vend beverage temperature
typically allows customers to select from more beverages and ensures
that the customer will receive a properly cooled product, regardless of
the product's vertical location in the machine. In response to NAMA's
proposal to apply the current definition of ``fully cooled vending
machine'' as found in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, DOE has reviewed
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 and did not find such a definition.
As discussed earlier, DOE considered an alternative definition for
fully cooled beverage vending machine. That definition would
distinguish between those beverage vending machines that bring a
product closer to the temperature at which it will be dispensed as it
is moved closer to the next-to-vend position in the machine (i.e.,
zone-cooled beverage vending machines which hold the product in a
vertical stack), and those units that are not designed to store
products at temperatures other than the temperature at which the
product will be dispensed. However, as suggested by interested parties
in response to the 2013 BVM Framework Document, enforcing such a
definition would require temperature measurements at each beverage
location, which would be extremely burdensome to implement. In
addition, requiring all beverages to be maintained at the next-to-vend
temperature is an unrealistic requirement given the current designs of
Class A machines. Instead, DOE is proposing temperature measurements at
only the next-to-vend and furthest from next-to-vend temperature
positions. DOE believes this is a reasonable number of additional
temperature measurements such that the test procedure will not be
unduly burdensome to conduct, while still providing a method to verify
the location cooling method employed by the given machine. In addition,
DOE selected a temperature range of 10 [deg]F, as suggested by AMS, as
a reasonable temperature bound to differentiate fully cooled beverage
vending machines. DOE verified this proposed temperature range based on
limited testing of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending
machines currently available on the market to determine the typical
temperature variability observed between the next-to-vend and furthest
from next-to-vend beverages in Class A and Class B equipment,
respectively. As such, DOE is proposing a more quantitative definition
of fully cooled to unambiguously differentiate Class A and Class B
equipment.
DOE believes that the proposed definition of ``fully cooled''
accurately reflects the differences in cooling method and design
between fully cooled and non-fully cooled beverage vending machines,
and, further, aligns with DOE's interpretation of fully cooled machines
to date. Therefore, DOE does not anticipate that this proposal will
change the equipment class or energy standard level for any equipment
that is currently covered under existing standards.
Along with DOE's proposed definition for fully cooled, DOE also
proposes to adopt a new test method that can be used to quantitatively
differentiate between Class A and Class B equipment. As noted by
Wittern, if temperature measurements are going to be used to determine
which machines are fully cooled, the measurements must come from test
packages in positions other than next-to-vend, because test packages in
the next-to-vend position will be at the temperature at which they will
be vended whether or not the machine is designed to equally cool all
products within the machine. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2).
In response to the 2013 BVM Framework, DOE received several
comments concerning additional temperature measurements. Wittern
commented that it did not agree with the definition of ``fully cooled''
in the framework because it required temperature measurements of all
products, which would not be practical
[[Page 46917]]
and would be extremely costly. Wittern also commented that the average
of next-to-vend beverage temperature measurements is sufficient as a
baseline to ensure compliance. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) AMS agreed
with the rationale of additional temperature measurement requirements
but argued that the data collected should only be used in a general
way. (AMS, No 17 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that DOE should
consider requiring additional thermocouples throughout the different
zones of the equipment in order to verify the equipment's cooling
mechanism (fully cooled or zone-cooled), and added that DOE can refer
to the test procedure for residential refrigeration equipment. (CA
IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5) The Joint Comment stated that it supports
additional product temperature measurements that could be used to
verify a unit's equipment class. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2)
Royal and NAMA did not support the addition of requirements of
temperature measurements at locations other than the next-to-vend
position because the location of such thermocouples is not specified in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 and will increase the time and cost of
testing, creating undue hardship on small manufacturers by requiring
them to expand their laboratory equipment and resources. (Royal, No. 11
at p. 4; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 3) NAMA also commented that all temperature
measurements should continue to be made in the next-to-vend package,
focusing on the products that are conditioned for immediate sale to the
consumer. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 3) Wittern commented that it would prefer
to minimize the number of thermocouples needed for the test, as it is
almost maxed out on the capabilities of its data acquisition equipment.
(Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2)
DOE acknowledges the comments of interested parties regarding the
need for additional temperature measurements and the potential
associated burden with such measurements, but notes that a quantitative
and objective test method is required to unambiguously differentiate
Class A and Class B equipment in cases where the appropriate
categorization of equipment may not be clear. Therefore, in today's
NOPR, DOE is proposing a test method to verify whether refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machines meet the definition of
``fully cooled.'' The proposed test method is based on the difference
between the average next-to-vend temperature and the average
temperature of standard test packages placed in the furthest from next-
to-vend position during the test period. Specifically, DOE proposes to
amend the regulatory text to clarify that a beverage vending machine is
fully cooled if the difference between these two averages is no greater
than 10 [deg]F during the test period.
DOE recognizes the comments of interested parties stating that it
is difficult to establish a strict range that will be universally
applicable to all types of Class A and Class B refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines. Specifically, it is possible that
some machines that have next-to-vend beverages stored throughout the
vertical axis of the usable refrigerated space could have differences
between the average next-to-vend temperature and the average furthest
from next-to-vend temperature (along the horizontal axis) that are
greater than any range DOE may set. Conversely, machines that have
next-to-vend beverages only in the bottom of the machine (stack
machines) could have differences between the average next-to-vend
temperature and the furthest from next-to-vend temperature (along the
vertical access) that are less than any range DOE may set. However, DOE
notes that a quantitative test is required to ensure consistent
categorization among manufacturers and for appropriate application of
the standards.
DOE believes that a 10 [deg]F temperature range is sufficiently
broad so that it will effectively categorize machines in which the
entire refrigerated volume is fully cooled. DOE also notes that such a
temperature range may encourage manufacturers of Class B, zone-cooled
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines to ensure that
the refrigeration system is, in fact, only cooling the bottom portion
of the machine where the next-to-vend beverages are located, which is
an inherently more energy efficient design. DOE does not believe a
strict temperature range would create a loophole for manufacturers to
modify the design of Class A machines such that the temperature
requirement is not met and the equipment can be certified as a Class B
machine due to the specific customer utility of fully cooled machines.
As such, DOE proposes to establish an optional test method for
determining if a given refrigerated bottled or canned unit meets DOE's
definition of ``fully cooled'' where standard test packages would be
placed in representative locations furthest from each next-to-vend
beverage location, in addition to every next-to-vend beverage position
as is currently required. For beverage vending machines with horizontal
product rows, or spirals, this would require a standard test package at
the back of the horizontal product rows in the four corners of the
machine (e.g., bottom right, bottom left, top right, and top left). For
beverage vending machines with standard products configured in a
vertical stack, this would include an additional standard test package
at the top of each stack. To determine if a given refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage vending machine was fully cooled, manufacturers
would determine the average temperature of the standard test packages
in the furthest from the next-to-vend position over the entire test
period and compare that value to the integrated average temperature of
standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions. If the
difference between these two values is less than or equal to 10 [deg]F,
the tested unit would be considered fully cooled.
DOE notes that this test method would not be required to certify
equipment but would be the method used by DOE to determine the
appropriate equipment class for enforcement purposes. Therefore, DOE's
proposed definition and test method would not require manufacturers to
take any additional temperature measurements beyond what is currently
specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, as incorporated, and ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, as proposed. Even if manufacturers elect to
perform this proposed test method for all certified BVM models, DOE
does not believe this will significantly increase the burden of
conducting the BVM test procedure. A detailed analysis of the
incremental burden associated with the fully cooled validation
procedure is included in section IV.B.
DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of ``fully
cooled.'' DOE would further appreciate comment as to whether the
proposed definition aligns with the classifications of Class A and
Class B equipment currently used in industry.
DOE requests comment on the proposed fully cooled validation test
method. Specifically, DOE requests comment as to whether a range of 10
[deg]F is an appropriate threshold to differentiate fully cooled
equipment and any incremental burden on manufacturers associated with
the optional test method for determining if a BVM model meets the
definition of ``fully cooled.''
8. Placement of Thermocouples During Testing
DOE has realized that there is currently a lack of specificity in
the DOE test procedure regarding proper placement of thermocouple wires
[[Page 46918]]
during testing. DOE proposes to clarify that, in order to avoid
compromising the thermal integrity of the vending machine, thermocouple
wires should not be run through the dispensing door. Instead, the wires
should be fed through the gasket, as it will form around them and
maintain a better thermal seal for the cooled compartment. As such, DOE
proposes to add text to the BVM test procedure in Appendix A and
Appendix B specifying that sensors shall be installed in a manner that
does not affect energy performance. Specifically, DOE proposes to amend
the regulatory text to require that thermocouple wires be run through
the door gasket and not through the dispensing door of the beverage
vending machine such that the sensor pathway is sealed to prohibit
airflow between the interior refrigerated volume and the ambient room
air.
9. Establishing Testing Provisions at the Lowest Application Product
Temperature
DOE's current test procedure requires that an average next-to-vend
temperature of 36 [deg]F 1 [deg]F be maintained throughout
the test, as required by the energy performance test (section 7.2) in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 contains
the same requirement. DOE is aware that certain models of beverage
vending machines available on the market are covered by DOE's test
procedure and energy conservation standards, but are not designed to
maintain the prescribed rating temperature, and thus cannot be tested
in accordance with the DOE test procedure. Manufacturers of such
equipment currently must request a test procedure waiver to comply with
DOE's energy conservation standards in accordance with 10 CFR 431.401.
While DOE recognizes that the majority of covered beverage vending
machines can be tested at the established rating temperature of 36
[deg]F, DOE is aware of some unique BVM models that are designed to
operate much higher than 36 [deg]F and cannot operate at 36 [deg]F. As
such, in the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE discussed adopting
provisions for testing equipment that cannot operate at the specified
next-to-vend beverage temperature at the equipment's lowest application
product temperature. DOE added that, in this context, the lowest
application product temperature would describe the lowest temperature
at which the beverage vending machine is capable of operating and is
often indicated by the lowest setting on a unit's thermostat. In
response to the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE received several
comments regarding a proposed lowest application product temperature
provision. Both Royal and NAMA disagreed with allowing BVM models that
cannot achieve an average temperature of next-to-vend products of 36
[deg]F ( 1 [deg]F) to instead be tested at the lowest
application product temperature, contending that test procedures should
use ANSI-approved technical standards. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 3; NAMA,
No. 8 at p. 3) Wittern saw no need for the lowest application product
temperature provision. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) AMS supported the
provision as long as there is no attendant change in MDEC calculation.
(AMS, No. 17 at p. 2)
DOE is proposing amendments to its test procedure for beverage
vending machines to allow covered beverage vending machines that cannot
achieve an average next-to-vend temperature of 36 [deg]F (
1 [deg]F) to instead be tested at their lowest application product
temperature. DOE believes that testing at the lowest application
product temperature would best allow for the measurement of DEC of
equipment that cannot maintain an average next-to-vend temperature of
36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F). The lowest application product
temperature provision would be consistent with DOE's 2014 test
procedure final rule for commercial refrigeration equipment, where an
identical provision was adopted for commercial refrigeration equipment
that could not maintain the required integrated average product
temperature specified for its given equipment class. 79 FR 22277,
22297-22298, 22308 (April 21, 2014).
In the context of beverage vending machines, the lowest application
product temperature would describe the lowest temperature at which a
beverage vending machine model is capable of maintaining next-to-vend
beverages and could correspond to the lowest setting on a unit's
thermostat. For beverage vending machines that cannot maintain an
average next-to-vend temperature of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F),
the lowest application product temperature provision would specify a
revised average beverage temperature for beverages in the next-to-vend
position, but would not modify any other requirements of the DOE test
procedure. Equipment tested and certified using the lowest application
product temperature would be required to meet the standard applicable
for its equipment class and refrigerated volume, and the manufacturer
would be required to maintain records of the lowest application product
temperature at which a given model is rated.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt a lowest application
product temperature provision for covered beverage vending machines
that cannot be tested at the specified average next-to-vend temperature
of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F).
DOE also requests comment on how the lowest application product
temperature might be best determined for beverage vending machines and
whether the lowest thermostat setting is a reasonable approach for most
equipment. DOE requests comment on how to determine the lowest
application product temperature for equipment without thermostats.
10. Clarifications to Certification and Reporting Requirements
DOE notes that 10 CFR 429.52(b)(2) contains requirements for
certification reports for covered beverage vending machines.
Specifically, DOE requires reporting of ``maximum average daily energy
consumption.'' However, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 describes the
test procedure for determining ``daily energy consumption'' as the
measured result for a given model of beverage vending machine. To be
consistent, DOE is proposing updating the reporting requirements at 10
CFR 429.52(b)(2) to reference ``daily energy consumption'' rather than
``maximum average daily energy consumption.'' DOE notes that it intends
for manufacturers to include in their certification reports the
measured ``daily energy consumption'' for each basic model of beverage
vending machine. The ``maximum daily energy consumption'' referenced in
10 CFR 431.296 for a given model of beverage vending machine is the
maximum permissible energy consumption (i.e., the energy conservation
standard) level for that model, while the ``daily energy consumption''
is the measured energy consumption determined through the DOE test
procedure. The ``daily energy consumption'' of a given BVM basic model
measured in the DOE test procedure and reported in accordance with 10
CFR 429.52(b)(2) should be compared to the ``maximum daily energy
consumption'' for the basic model's respective equipment class in the
standard table in 10 CFR 431.296. Specifically, the ``daily energy
consumption'' determined and reported for each BVM basic model shall
not exceed the relevant ``maximum daily energy consumption'' value
noted in the standard table. Therefore, DOE proposes to update the
language at 10 CFR 429.52(b)(2) to request the ``daily energy
consumption'' of covered models and update the language at 10 CFR
431.296 to specify that the ``daily energy consumption'' of
refrigerated bottled or
[[Page 46919]]
canned shall not exceed the ``maximum daily energy consumption''
specified in the energy conservation standard table.
11. Treatment of Certain Accessories During Testing
In reviewing its test procedure for refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines, DOE recognized that the existing test
procedure does not clearly specify the appropriate operation of some
components and accessories when conducting the DOE test procedure.
Given this, DOE understands that there is room for misinterpretation of
the requirements for equipment configuration where the DOE test
procedure is currently ambiguous or silent. As such, DOE is proposing
to clarify the proper configuration and operation of several specific
components and accessories in the DOE test procedure.
DOE emphasizes that the clarifications discussed in this section
III.A.11 serve only to unambiguously specify the intent of the current
DOE test procedure. However, DOE recognizes that, because the DOE test
procedure was previously silent or ambiguous on the specific treatment
of some components, it is possible that some BVM manufacturers
misinterpreted DOE's test procedure and, thus, some BVM models were
tested inconsistently. Therefore, some BVM models may require
recertification based on these new clarifications, but this is only
because these models were not tested in a manner consistent with the
DOE test procedure or the majority of BVM models. Since these
clarifications do not represent new amendments or requirements when
conducting the DOE test procedure, DOE believes that it is appropriate
that the proposed revised and additional language be required for
equipment testing as of 180 days after publication of any final rule
adopting such revised or additional language.
DOE received several comments regarding the requirements for
energy-consuming devices unrelated to lighting, refrigeration, or
beverage dispensing in the DOE test procedure. AMS commented that ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1 does not mention coin-changing, bill-validating,
or cashless systems, one or more of which is always included on a
vending machine and some of which may consume energy in amounts that
might have a slight effect on DEC. AMS recommended the addition of a
clarification that these devices are not required to be in place during
testing. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 2) The Joint Comment requested that DOE
clarify how machines with interactive touch screens or other energy-
consuming features are tested under the current test procedure, and
consider amending the test procedure to capture this energy use if it
is not currently captured so that manufacturers will have an incentive
to reduce this energy use. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) Royal
recommended an alternate energy specification for beverage vending
machines that incorporates off-the-shelf components that contribute to
increased energy use, but also have a parallel DOE requirement for
energy use. Royal stated that the BVM energy conservation standard
should include an appropriate allowance for incorporated components
that must meet a separate DOE standard for energy use. (Royal, No. 11
at p. 8) Royal and NAMA commented that manufacturers are constantly
being asked to develop equipment that combines other products and
additional functionality beyond cooling of beverages, and that such
equipment is generally considered to be outside the scope of the ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 test procedure. Royal and NAMA further
commented that they anticipate an increasing number of customer
requests for such components. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 8; NAMA, No. 8 at p.
9)
In addition, Royal and NAMA commented that they offer ``heating
mode'' for outdoor machines in cold climates as an optional accessory;
however, this mode has very limited demand and therefore limited impact
on annual power used by beverage vending machines in the United States.
Royal recommended that DOE not evaluate this feature. (Royal, No. 11 at
p. 12; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 15) Royal also commented that none of its
vending machines for outdoor applications have heaters or hot gas
defrost mode, and that heaters that are installed are probably an
after-market component or an optional accessory. (Royal, No. 7 at p.
93)
AMS and Crane Merchandising (Crane) commented that they manufacture
and sell machines with heaters for use in outside climates, although
the quantities sold are very small and the heaters are only activated
in sub-freezing conditions. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 11; Crane, No. 7 at p.
91) Accordingly, AMS recommended DOE disregard the issue altogether.
(AMS, No.17 at p. 11) AMS added that, being at high efficiency on the
cooling side generally means equally at high efficiency on the heating
side. Because most of these heating systems are based on electricity,
which is essentially 100-percent efficient at heating, AMS added that
DOE can ignore additional energy use from these features. (AMS, No. 7
at p. 93)
In response to comments submitted by interested parties, DOE notes
that any device that is integral to the intended operation of the
beverage vending machine must be included in the test. In this context,
DOE interprets integral to mean necessary for operation of the BVM
model in a manner that meets the DOE definition for refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine. That is, the accessory or
component is required for the BVM model to cool bottled or canned
beverages and/or dispense bottled or canned beverages on payment. In
addition, any manually-controllable energy-consuming accessories that
are integral to the performance of the beverage vending machine
refrigeration system must be in place during testing if offered for
sale with that basic model and must be tested at the most energy-
consuming setting. An exception applies for accessories that are
controlled by automatic controls, which shall be tested in the
automatic state. Optional accessories that do not affect the measured
energy use of covered equipment generally do not need to be included in
the test. To clarify these requirements, DOE proposes to add language
in Appendix A and Appendix B regarding the specific treatment of
components and accessories during testing, including the specific
exclusion of heaters installed solely for preventing the freezing of
sealed beverages in the winter in extremely cold climates. The ensuing
sections discuss the treatment of specific features, components, and
accessories under the existing and any amended DOE test procedure
provisions.
a. Money-Processing Equipment
Money-processing devices are integral to the vending function of
the beverage vending machine and, accordingly, should be in place and
functional during testing. Money-processing equipment include, but are
not limited to coin mechanisms, bill validators, and credit card
readers. When certifying a vending machine, the most energy-consuming
combination of money-processing equipment should be used, and all other
less energy-consumptive combinations may be listed as different models
covered under that basic model. Alternatively, manufacturers may wish
to certify and make representations regarding the energy use of each
combination of money-processing equipment as a different basic model.
In order to certify each combination as a separate basic model, a
manufacturer would be required to maintain test data
[[Page 46920]]
from testing of the machine in each configuration.
b. Interior Lighting
Refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines typically
include lighting to illuminate the product, in the case of Class A
equipment, or illuminate display panels that also serve as the physical
walls of the beverage vending machine. In both cases, these lights are
internal to the physical walls of the beverage vending machine and,
thus, deemed integral to the operation of the equipment. The DOE test
procedure, through incorporation of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004,
currently requires beverage vending machines to be tested with ``normal
lighting and control settings.'' The revised ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2010 includes the same requirement.
DOE recognizes that this specification could be interpreted
differently in different circumstances and, as such, proposes to amend
the regulatory text to clarify the treatment of internal lighting when
conducting the DOE test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposes an
amendment to the regulatory text stating that lighting that is
contained within or is part of the physical boundary of the
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine established by
the top, bottom, and side panels of the equipment be placed in its
maximum energy consuming state. DOE believes that the maximum energy
consuming state is consistent with the ``normal'' setting and is the
operation most commonly employed in the field. In DOE's experience,
most beverage vending machines employ up to three lighting settings:
``on,'' ``dim,'' and ``off.'' To the extent that there are multiple
``on'' settings, DOE understands that these settings typically
constitute various dimming settings and do not represent settings that
are brighter or more-energy consuming than the expected field
operation. More importantly, DOE believes that specifying that internal
lighting be operated in the maximum energy consuming state provides
clear and unambiguous instructions that are not subject to
interpretation of testing personnel. DOE believes such a specification
will result in consistent and repeatable test results for beverage
vending machines under the DOE test procedure.
DOE finds this clarification to be applicable to equipment tested
under Appendix A to demonstrate compliance with existing energy
conservation standards, as well as to equipment testing using Appendix
B to demonstrate compliance with any future energy conservation
standards. Therefore, DOE proposes to add language to both Appendix A
and Appendix B clarifying that internal lighting shall be operating in
its maximum energy consuming state when conducting the DOE test
procedure.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify in Appendices A and
B that internal lighting shall be operated in the maximum energy
consuming state under the DOE test procedure.
DOE requests comment on whether the maximum energy consuming state
for internal lighting is consistent with ``normal'' operation.
c. External Customer Display Signs, Lights, or Digital Screens
In addition to this typical internal case lighting. DOE understands
that some refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines may
incorporate additional exterior lighting or signage, outside of the
body of the refrigerated BVM cabinet. This lighting and signage is
optional and is not integral to the cabinet. Further, this auxiliary
signage does not illuminate product inside the body of the cabinet. In
addition, some models may include touchscreens or lighted displays. DOE
recognizes that external customer display signs, lighting, and digital
screens will increase the energy use of refrigerated beverage vending
machines that include those features, potentially significantly so. For
example, the average energy use of televisions and digital screens is
approximately 2.58 kWh/day in on mode and 0.01 kWh/day for televisions
in stand-by mode \10\ (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0026, No. 27). The
average energy use of a television in on mode represents between 50 and
100 percent of the energy use of an average beverage vending machine,
depending on the BVM size and equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Note that the DOE test procedure for televisions includes
measurement of power consumed in on mode at different screen
illumination levels and power consumed in several standby modes. 10
CFR 430.23. This average calculation of daily energy consumption
represents an average of the power consumed in each of the on mode
and standby mode, respectively, multiplied by 24 hours/day and
divided by 1,000 watts/kilowatt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that such external customer display signs, lighting, or
digital screens are not explicitly addressed in the DOE test procedure
or in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2010. However, ASHRAE has issued an interpretation to ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2010, which states that ``the Standard (32.1) addresses
the refrigerated/delivery system portion of the machine. Thus, any
peripheral devices, not necessary for the basic function of the vending
machine are not addressed by Standard 32.1.'' Similarly, DOE finds that
external customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens are
peripheral to the primary functionality of a refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machine, as defined at 10 CFR 431. 292, and
thus their energy use should not be accounted for in the measured DEC
of BVM models.
Further, as the DOE test procedure does not provide guidance for
how to operate such external customer display signs, lighting, and
digital screens, it would be inconsistent with the DOE test procedure
to include the energy use of external customer display signs, lighting,
and digital screens in the measured DEC of BVM models. As such, in the
current DOE test procedure, as specified and clarified in Appendix A in
this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes to clarify that customer display
signs, lighting, and digital screens that are external to the
refrigerated beverage vending machine and not integral to the operation
of the primary refrigeration or vending functions (e.g., allow
consumers to make a product selection) may be disabled, disconnected,
or otherwise de-energized. Lighting that is internal to the
refrigerated beverage vending machine cabinet or necessary for the
vending function must be placed in its maximum energy consuming state,
as discussed in section III.A.11.b. and subsequently in this section
III.A.11.c.
Some BVM models also include customer display signs, lighting, or
digital screens that are integral to the functionality of the
refrigerated beverage vending machine in that it cannot perform the
primary refrigeration and vending functions if such equipment is
disabled or removed. For example, if a digital screen is integrated
into the cabinetry or controls of a BVM model such that it cannot be
independently de-energized or disabled and/or the BVM cannot dispense
product without the digital screen being energized, the digital screen
would be deemed integral to the BVM model. In this case, the integral
customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens should be put in
its lowest energy-consuming state. If a digital screen performs the
vending or money-processing function, that screen should be placed in
its lowest energy-consuming state that still allows the money-
processing feature to function. DOE believes that this will provide
equitable treatment with other money-processing devices that must be
[[Page 46921]]
energized, as specified in section III.A.11.a.
To clarify the treatment of external and integrated customer
display signs, lighting, and digital screens, DOE proposes to add
language to the test procedure in Appendix A specifying the treatment
of these devices when certifying BVM models under the existing energy
conservation standards. DOE notes that this includes television
displays, as commented on by Royal and NAMA.
DOE notes, however, that the use of interactive, multi-purpose
energized displays are becoming much more common in new equipment
designs. As the use of such customer display signs, lighting, and
digital screens become more ubiquitous in refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machine design, it may be important to include
the energy use of such features in the measured DEC of BVM models. DOE
notes that these energized displays are also becoming much more
interactive and more commonly are integral to the refrigeration or
vending functionality of the refrigerated beverage vending machine.
Therefore, it may be more representative to capture some measure of
energy use of external, integral customer display signs, lighting, and
digital screens in the measured DEC of the BVM model.
Specifying, however, that external, integral customer display
signs, lighting, and digital screens be operated as the equipment would
typically be used in the field may significantly increase the energy
use of BVM models and capturing the energy use of such auxiliary
functions may not be representative of the primary refrigeration and
vending functions of the refrigerated beverage vending machine. In
addition, specifying typical field operation for the variety of
equipment configurations and operating modes may significantly increase
the complexity of testing BVM models.
As such, DOE believes that capturing the standby energy use of such
external, integral customer display signs, lighting, and digital
screens installed on a given BVM model would be a sufficiently
representative and reasonable alternative that can be consistently
implemented across BVM models. In this way, the energy use associated
with the primary refrigeration and vending functions of the
refrigerated beverage vending machine continue to constitute the
majority of the measured DEC value, but the incremental standby energy
use of any external customer display signs, lighting, and digital
screens that are integral to the BVM model are minimally accounted for
in a consistent and repeatable manner.
Therefore, DOE proposes that under the amended DOE test procedure
presented in Appendix B, all external, integral customer display signs,
lighting, and digital screens be placed in standby mode. For the
purposes of the BVM test procedure, DOE proposes to incorporate a
definition for standby mode, applicable to external, integral customer
display signs, lighting, and digital screens in Appendix B. DOE
proposes to define standby mode as the mode of operation in which any
external, integral customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens
are connected to mains power, do not produce the intended illumination,
display, or interaction functionality, and can be switched into another
mode automatically with only a remote user-generated or an internal
signal. If the external, integral customer display signs, lighting, or
digital screens do not have a standby mode, the integral customer
display signs, lighting, or digital screens would be placed in the
lowest energy-consuming state, similar to Appendix A. In addition, if a
digital screen performs the vending or money-processing function, that
screen should be placed in its lowest energy-consuming state that still
allows the money-processing feature to function.
DOE notes that, under this proposal, all non-integral, external
customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens that are purely
auxiliary and can be independently energized and operated, would
continue to be disconnected, disabled, or otherwise de-energized in
Appendix B, as specified in Appendix A.
DOE requests comment on the range of equipment that should be
addressed in this category of accessories and if the proposed
terminology of customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens is
sufficient to capture the variety of similar auxiliary energy-consuming
accessories that might be installed on BVM models.
DOE requests comment on the treatment of external and integral
customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens in Appendix A.
DOE requests comment on the proposed treatment of external and
integral customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens in
Appendix B. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether disabling
external devices and placing integral devices in standby mode or their
lowest energy-consuming state is sufficiently representative of the
energy use of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of standby mode as
the mode of operation in which the external, integral customer display
signs, lighting, or digital screens is connected to mains power, does
not produce the intended illumination, display, or interaction
functionality, and can be switched into another mode automatically with
only a remote user-generated or an internal signal.
For digital screens that also perform the vending or money-
processing function, DOE requests comment on the proposal to place
these screens in their lowest energy-consuming state that still allows
the money-processing feature to function.
d. Anti-Sweat and Other Electric Resistance Heaters
Class A beverage vending machines may come equipped with anti-sweat
electric resistance heaters that serve to evaporate any water that
condenses on the surface of the door or walls during operation.
DOE proposes to amend the regulatory text to clarify that anti-
sweat and other electric resistance heaters should be operational
during testing under the DOE test procedure. Models with a user-
selectable setting must be turned on and set to the maximum usage
position. Models featuring an automatic, non-user-adjustable controller
that turns on or off based on environmental conditions must be
operating in the automatic state. Additionally, DOE proposes to amend
the regulatory text to clarify that, if a unit is not shipped with a
controller from the point of manufacture, and is intended to be used
with a controller, the manufacturer must make representations of the
basic model based upon the rated performance of that basic model as
tested when equipped with an appropriate controller. DOE is proposing
to add clarifying language in Appendix A and Appendix B to specify that
anti-sweat or other electric resistance heaters must be installed and
operated in their automatic state, if controlled, or in their maximum
energy consuming position, if manually adjustable.
e. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps
Beverage vending machines capture water from the air entering the
cabinet during operation by causing the water to condense and then
freeze on the evaporator coil of the equipment. During a defrost cycle,
this frost is melted, and the meltwater produced must be removed from
the unit. In many types of equipment, this meltwater is collected in a
pan beneath the unit.
[[Page 46922]]
Some models of beverage vending machines come equipped with electric
resistance heaters that evaporate this water out of the pan and into
the ambient air. Other models may come equipped with pumps that pump
meltwater to an external drain.
In DOE's view, these electric resistance heaters and condensate
pumps must be installed and operational during testing pursuant to the
DOE test procedure as they would be used in the field during the entire
test. The ``entire test'' includes stabilization, low power mode, and
vending state test periods. Prior to the start of the stabilization
period, the condensate pan should be dry. During the entirety of the
period of the test following the start of the stabilization period, any
condensate moisture generated should be allowed to accumulate in the
pan, as it would during normal operations. Water should not be manually
added to or removed from the condensate pan at any time during the
entire test. If the condensate heater or pump is equipped with controls
to initiate the operation of the heater or pump based on water level or
ambient conditions, these controls may be enabled and the heater or
pump should be operated in the automatic setting.
DOE is aware that manufacturers may offer condensate pan heaters
and pumps such that they are shipped separately from, or not installed
upon, the specific beverage vending machine unit with which they would
be used in normal operation. DOE believes that, if the manufacturer
offers a given basic model for sale with an available condensate pan
heater or pump, the manufacturer must make representations of the
performance of the basic model as tested with the feature in place. DOE
is proposing to add clarifying language in Appendix A and Appendix B to
specify that, during testing pursuant to the DOE test procedure,
condensate pan heaters and pumps must be installed and operated as they
would be used in the field.
f. Illuminated Temperature Displays
Manufacturers may equip some beverage vending machine models with
illuminated displays that provide visual information to the equipment
operator regarding, for example, the temperature inside the
refrigerated case. DOE understands this feature to be integral to the
design of the given model and proposes to amend the regulatory text to
clarify that any illuminated temperature displays should be enabled
during the test as they would be during normal field operation. DOE is
proposing to add clarifying language in Appendix A and Appendix B to
address illuminated temperature displays and alarms.
g. Condenser Filters
Manufacturers may offer models equipped with nonpermanent filters
over a model's condenser coil to prevent particulates from blocking the
condenser coil and reducing airflow. DOE believes that these filters
should be removed during testing pursuant to the DOE test procedure, as
such accessories are optional and are not required for operation of the
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine. Further, these
optional condenser filters are not expected to significantly impact
energy use over the relatively short duration of the DOE test procedure
and are more important for the long-term reliability of the equipment
in the field. Therefore, to simplify testing of BVM models under the
DOE test procedure, DOE proposes to add clarifying language to Appendix
A and Appendix B that any optional condenser filters should be removed.
h. Security Covers
Manufacturers may offer for sale with a basic model an option to
include straps or other devices to secure the beverage vending machine
and prevent theft or tampering. Because such security devices are not
anticipated to affect the measured energy use of covered equipment and
will likely significantly complicate the loading and testing of BVM
models, DOE intended that these security devices should be removed
during testing under the DOE test procedure and proposes to add
clarifying language to the proposed test procedures in Appendix A and
Appendix B.
i. Coated Coils
Coated coils, generally specified for use in units that will be
subjected to environments in which acids or oxidizers are present, are
treated with an additional coating (such as a layer of epoxy or
polymer) as a barrier to protect the bare metal of the coil from
deterioration through environmental contact. DOE believes the existing
DOE test procedure accurately accounts for the performance of all types
of coils, including those with coatings, and that no additional
clarifications are needed in the test procedure.
j. General Purpose Outlets
Some beverage vending machines may be offered for sale with
integrated general purpose electrical outlets, which may be used to
power additional equipment. DOE intended that, during testing pursuant
to the DOE test procedure, no external load should be connected to the
general purpose outlets contained within a unit and proposes to add
clarifying language to Appendix A and Appendix B.
k. Crankcase Heaters and Electric Resistance Heaters for Cold Weather
Some BVM models feature crankcase heaters or electric resistance
heaters designed to keep the compressor warm in order to maintain the
refrigerant at optimal conditions. They also prevent freezing of
refrigerated beverages contained in the unit when the unit is operating
at extremely low ambient temperatures. In DOE's view, if present,
crankcase heaters and other electric resistance heaters for cold
weather should be operational during the test. Under this proposal, if
a control system, such as a thermostat or electronic controller, is
used to modulate the operation of the heater, it should be used as
intended per the manufacturer's instructions. DOE is proposing to add
clarifying language regarding testing units with crankcase heaters and
electric resistance heaters for cold weather.
DOE acknowledges that the types of accessories and components that
may be attached to a beverage vending machine are numerous and varied,
as noted by Royal and NAMA. Regarding Royal's suggestion concerning
calculation methods for different accessories, especially those that
are covered under other DOE energy conservation standards, such as
televisions, DOE believes that it is more straightforward and
representative to measure the energy use of the BVM model directly,
including any available energy-consuming accessories that are integral
to the function of the beverage vending machine. Due to the variety of
accessories that could be incorporated into a BVM model, DOE does not
find it practical to incorporate calculations or algorithms into the
DOE test procedure that would be sufficiently representative of the
energy use of that specific BVM accessory and model. As such, DOE is
not proposing any calculation-based methods for the purposes of
establishing the energy use of BVM models or specific BVM accessories
at this time.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify the treatment of
accessories in the DOE test procedure.
DOE also requests comment on any other accessories that may require
special treatment or exemption.
[[Page 46923]]
B. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions To Account for Low Power
Modes
This NOPR also proposes an amendment to DOE's test procedure for
beverage vending machines, to be included in a new Appendix B to 10 CFR
part 431, subpart Q, which is intended to be used to demonstrate
compliance with any new or amended standards established as a result of
the associated ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket
No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022). This amendment would establish provisions
to account for equipment with low power modes and is proposed to ensure
greater accuracy in testing. The proposed amendment is discussed in the
following subsections, including applicable comments received from
interested parties, definitions, methods, and DOE's responses.
1. Characteristics of Low Power Modes
Many beverage vending machines are equipped with low power modes
designed to be used during periods when demand for refrigerated
beverages is low and there is opportunity to reduce equipment energy
use without greatly affecting consumer utility. The features of these
modes may include (but are not limited to) switching off or dimming
lights, and raising the temperature set point (to which the unit cools
the product) to a value higher than the temperature set point
associated with the unit's vending mode. These low power modes are
typically activated during periods when customer traffic is known or
anticipated to be minimal or nonexistent (such as at night or when a
facility is closed), though they may also be activated based on short-
term historical vend patterns or after a specified length of
inactivity. Some low power modes may be operated on fixed schedules,
while others may operate based on sensor input such as that from a
motion sensor or customer interface on the machine. Individual machines
may have multiple low power modes, such as a fixed low power mode
allowing the refrigeration system to shut off during periods when
customers are not available and an active low power mode during vending
periods that dims the lights when customer activity is not detected
after a certain length of time.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, the test method incorporated by
reference in the current DOE test procedure, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1-2010, the test method DOE proposes to incorporate by reference in
this test procedure NOPR, both require that the vending machine be
``operated with normal lighting and control settings, using only those
energy management controls that are permanently operational and not
capable of being adjusted by a machine operator.'' (ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2004 7.1.1(d)) These test procedures do not capture the
widely available user-adjustable low power modes of operation in a
representative manner, and manufacturers that offer this functionality
are not able to reflect the increased efficiency of the unit under
either of these test methods.
Additionally, these test methods do not specify how to test
equipment that has permanently operational controls that can be
adjusted. An example of such equipment could be a machine with lights
that automatically dim after a certain period of inactivity, and where
the length of the period of inactivity required to cause the lights to
dim can be adjusted to one of several values by a machine operator. In
such a case, the lighting controls are permanently operational, but
adjustable by a machine operator.
Section 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2010 both specify that ``the test chamber and vending
machine shall not be disturbed throughout the duration of the energy
consumption test once the measurement instrumentation is in place.'' As
already mentioned, DOE is aware that some currently available beverage
vending machines come equipped with low power modes or features that
become active after a certain period of inactivity. Due to the
requirements of section 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 (both 2004
and 2010 versions), it is possible for such features to become active
during the test period for unrepresentative periods of time.
2. Comments Received by Interested Parties
DOE received a variety of comments on the 2013 BVM Framework
describing the current use of low power modes in BVM testing and the
low power modes currently available on the market. Some of these
comments supported capturing the effect of low power modes and even
suggested approaches to account for low power modes in the test
procedure. Other commenters opposed accounting for low power mode for
several reasons.
NAMA commented that all equipment should be tested as supplied by
the factory, and only low power modes that cannot be disabled by the
end user should be included in the test because allowing other low
power modes creates the opportunity for the misrepresentation of the
equipment's energy use and ambiguity within the test method. (NAMA, No.
13 at p. 2) Royal and NAMA each commented that models with user-
adjustable controls that cannot be disabled should be operated in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommended mode of operation under
normal conditions or as shipped by the manufacturer, whichever results
in higher energy use. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 5; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 4) The
Joint Comment requested that DOE clarify how controls that cannot be
adjusted in the field are currently captured by the DOE test
procedures, and stated that the current application of the DOE test
procedure may not be adequately reflecting field energy use. (Joint
Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to try to ensure
that the output of the test procedure comes close to representing the
real-world energy use of equipment installed in the field, consistent
with EPCA requirements, and especially that low power modes do not
allow lights to be dimmed or powered off for uncharacteristically long
periods of time as ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 currently permits. (CA
IOUs, No. 19 at p. 4)
NAMA commented that, as it understands, some equipment has power
management functions installed by the original equipment manufacturer
that cannot be disabled by the end user in any way and, therefore, are
active during the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 test, but that some of this
equipment has energy management settings that the user can modify that
therefore does not meet the requirements of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1 test settings as currently written. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 4) Royal
commented that its machines have energy management features that are
built into the software but do not meet the requirement in ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2010 because the user can modify the energy management
settings, and low power modes are accordingly not used during testing.
(Royal, No. 11 at p. 4) AMS stated that its equipment includes controls
that can be used both to increase operating set point temperatures and
to decrease lighting intensity during periods of no sales activity, but
that in accordance with its interpretation of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
32.1, these controls have never been used during testing. (AMS, No. 17
at p. 2) AMS further described the low power software in its machines,
which includes lighting and refrigeration low power modes that are
entered into either based on sales history or by operator programming,
and noted that the
[[Page 46924]]
elevated temperature is prohibited if the health and safety controls
are set for items such as milk, which is a beverage but also a
perishable item that requires strict temperature control. (AMS, No. 17
at p. 3) AMS also commented that the field-allowable times of low power
mode can vary widely; from 0 to 15 hours per day during the week and
total weekend periods, and that any benchmark is just a benchmark and
cannot be expected to exactly reflect the true activity of a specific
machine in the field. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 3)
Royal did not support the creation of a provision to measure the
low power modes of operation, stating that tests should not be
conducted or accepted if the average product temperature cannot be
maintained within 36 [deg]F ( 1[deg]F) as specified in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. (Royal, No. 8 at p. 5) NAMA commented
that it does not support the creation of a provision to measure the
impact of low power modes of operation, except in the case where an
energy management system is incorporated into the original equipment
manufacturer design of the vending machine and cannot be defeated or
removed by the end user. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 5) Wittern stated that it
opposed the creation of a provision to measure the impact of low power
modes of operation as it would add another level of complexity, and it
wants to keep testing, reporting, and compliance related issues to a
minimum. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) AMS agreed that the present test
method does not capture the energy savings potential of optional power-
saving modes. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs commented that throughout the rulemaking process, DOE
should collect information from industry, purchasers, and consumers on
usage profiles of vending machines in order to best represent real-
world energy use in the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 4) The
CA IOUs also commented that DOE should include provisions to measure
the energy use of beverage vending machines in low power modes and get
an understanding of how such states are employed in installed
equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 4) The Joint Comment stated that it
generally supports the inclusion of test procedure provisions to
capture the energy savings benefit of controls, but encouraged DOE to
attempt to use field use data so that the test procedures can
reasonably reflect the actual energy savings from these controls.
(Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) AMS recommended that if evaluation of
energy-saving options is to be done at all, it should be done in a
totally separate specification and procedure because the wide range of
energy-saving options would be very difficult to standardize in the
basic MDEC requirements. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 3) AMS further commented
that if measurements of low power modes are made they should be done
with fixed temperature, lighting, and any other low-energy settings
that may be used and be done for a fixed period of time less than 24
hours with calculations applied to determine the potential savings per
24-hour period. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 3)
3. DOE's Proposed Low Power Mode Test Provisions
DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure to provide clear and
consistent provisions for testing beverage vending machines both in low
power mode and in vending environments and to indicate what settings
are to be used for the testing of machines with energy management
controls that are permanently operational (meaning those that cannot be
disabled) but can be adjusted by the operator. DOE acknowledges the
concerns of interested parties but believes that a BVM test procedure
that accounts for low power modes of operation is necessary for
accuracy of testing, since beverage vending machines are commonly
equipped and operated with low power modes in the field. Sections a, b,
and f of this section III.B.3 discuss definitions related to the low
power mode test procedure, a physical test method DOE considered, and
DOE's proposed method for accounting for low power modes of operation
in the DOE test procedure, respectively.
a. Definitions Related to the Low Power Mode Test Procedure
DOE is proposing to allow manufacturers of equipment with a low
power mode to enable those features during a fixed period of time
during the BVM test procedure. DOE proposes to define ``low power
mode'' as a state in which a beverage vending machine's lighting,
refrigeration, and/or other energy-using systems are automatically
adjusted (without user intervention) such that they consume less energy
than they consume in an active vending environment when the beverage
vending machine is capable of dispensing sealed beverages at the
intended vending temperature (36 1 [deg]F).
DOE also notes that it may be beneficial to differentiate between
low power modes that affect the refrigeration system and allow the
cabinet temperature to increase during a specified period and those
that affect other energy-consuming accessories, such as lighting,
display signage, or vending equipment. As such, DOE proposes to define
``refrigeration system low power mode'' and ``accessory low power
mode.'' Refrigeration system low power mode would be defined as a state
in which a beverage vending machine's refrigeration system is in low
power mode. To qualify as refrigeration system low power mode, the
average next-to-vend temperature must automatically (without user
intervention) raise to 40 [deg]F or higher and remain above this
threshold for at least one hour. ``Accessory low power mode'' would be
defined as a state in which a beverage vending machine's lighting and/
or other non-refrigeration energy-using systems are in low power mode.
This may include, but is not limited to, dimming or turning off lights
or display signage, but does not include adjustment of the
refrigeration system.
DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of ``low power
mode,'' ``refrigeration low power mode,'' and ``accessory low power
mode.''
b. Potential Low Power Mode Test Methods Based on Physical Testing
DOE considered several options to account for low power modes in
the DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines, including
physical testing and calculation-based methods. DOE recognizes that
objectively determining the performance of low power mode operation by
accounting for both refrigeration and accessory low power modes would
be the most accurate way to best represent the variety of low power
mode controls available. In addition, a physical test method would
provide an unambiguous verification of low power mode efficacy and
performance. As such, DOE considered an approach to account for low
power modes of operation using two separate physical test procedures;
one for the active vending state and one for the low power mode. This
approach could combine the respective measured energy use from each
test using a calculation. Such a method may be able to reflect the
variations among different types of refrigeration low power modes and
would physically verify the performance of the refrigeration low power
mode. However, because this approach would not account for the pull-
down from low power mode to return to vending state, DOE determined
that a method that does not account for pull-down energy use is not
sufficiently representative of the energy use of this
[[Page 46925]]
equipment over a representative cycle of use.
DOE also considered an approach in which equipment was allowed to
enter low power mode, including both refrigeration and accessory low
power modes, during a low power mode test period and required to return
to the specified average next-to-vend temperature at the conclusion of
the test. This would result in a test that included an 18-hour vending
state test period, followed by a 6-hour low power mode test period, and
finally a pull-down test period when the beverage vending machine would
be required to return to 36 1 [deg]F for a duration of
time, for example 1 minute, prior to concluding the test. The energy
use associated with the 6-hour low power mode test period would then be
adjusted to account for the length of the pull-down period to represent
the energy use associated with a 6-hour period when vending is not
required. For example, for a BVM model that took 1 hour to pull down,
the energy use associated with the 6-hour low power mode test period
would be reduced by 1 hour (i.e., multiplied by \5/6\). The measured
DEC for that BVM model would then consist of the energy use associated
with the vending state test period, the pull-down test period, and the
adjusted low power mode test period. Such a method would provide an
accurate representation of the variety of low power modes used in
beverage vending machines over a 24-hour cycle of use.
While physical testing of low power mode and any necessary pull-
down requirements would be the most accurate test method to account for
both accessory and refrigeration low power modes of operation, it is
DOE's understanding that refrigeration low power modes are extremely
variable in terms of their control strategies and operation and, thus,
this method may be difficult to implement in a repeatable manner. For
example, some refrigerated beverage vending machines may have a pull-
down period in excess of 6-hours, in which case this method would not
be appropriate. For those models, the energy consumed during the low
power mode test period and the pull-down test period could be scaled to
6-hours and added to the vending state test period energy use. However,
such an approach would benefit beverage vending machines with pull-down
periods longer than 6-hours and may provide a means for manufacturers
to exploit the test procedure by designing equipment with extremely
slow pull-down periods. Since this would reduce customer utility, DOE
does not believe pull-down periods in excess of 6-hours would be
common, but the possibility still exists to unfairly advantage
equipment with extremely long pull-down periods.
In addition, DOE believes that some refrigeration low power modes
may require specific instructions from the manufacturer to modify or
adjust the control systems precisely to accommodate the specific 6-hour
time frame for low power mode operation, since the control variables
are not always uniquely controllable via the user interface. This would
also reduce the consistency and repeatability of such a physical test
method and would make the method impractical to implement. Due to the
difficulty of representing the wide variety of refrigeration low power
modes in a consistent, fair, and reasonable manner, DOE determined that
a purely physical test method may not be feasible.
c. Potential Low Power Mode Test Methods Using a Combination of
Physical Testing for Accessory Low Power Mode and Calculated Credits
for Refrigeration Low Power Mode
To address the issue with repeatability, DOE also considered an
alternate calculation-based approach. In this method, the 6-hour low
power mode test period would only employ the accessory low power modes
and the refrigeration system low power mode would not be engaged.
Specifically, accessory low power modes that do not affect the cabinet
temperature may be activated to adjust lighting, display signs, vending
equipment, and other energized accessories to their minimally energy-
consuming state. However, all other requirements of the DOE test
procedure remain unchanged, the unit being tested must remain connected
to its power source throughout the test, and the test package
temperature measurements taken during the low power mode test are
incorporated into the integrated average temperature calculation. Under
this method, refrigeration low power modes should not be enabled during
the physical low power mode test. DOE believes that accessory low power
modes are somewhat more consistent and easier to characterize under a
physical test procedure and the resulting energy use reduction
associated with the accessory low power mode test procedure will
accurately represent the efficacy of accessory low power mode controls.
DOE is aware, however, that beverage vending machines may be
equipped with refrigeration low power modes that have the capability of
saving energy in the field when the amount of extra energy consumption
required to pull down from the elevated temperatures is less than the
amount of energy saved during the refrigeration low power mode when the
cabinet temperature is above the vending temperature. To account for
the energy use of the refrigeration low power mode and the associated
pull-down period in a consistent and repeatable manner, DOE also
considered providing a calculation credit to those machines equipped
with a refrigeration low power mode. Specifically, DOE is proposing to
amend its test procedure to allow a credit equal to 3 percent of the
measured DEC of any unit equipped with a refrigeration low power mode.
DOE developed the 3 percent value based upon data from tests of the
refrigeration low power modes of five different models (four Class A
and one Class B). All units were tested by a third-party test
laboratory using the current DOE BVM test procedure. The models
selected represented a cross-section of the largest BVM manufacturers
in the United States. Each unit was programmed to enter the low power
mode at a specified time after temperature stabilization had been
achieved and to exit the low power mode at a second specified time.
Data was collected throughout the duration of the low power mode and
continuously through the ensuing pull-down period until the next-to-
vend beverage temperature was again within the DOE test-specified 36
[deg]F 1 [deg]F.
The resulting test data was used to calculate approximate energy
savings during a 6-hour window during which the average next-to-vend
temperature was outside of the bounds of the required value for the DOE
test procedure. This would correspond to the unit entering the
refrigeration low power mode during a time when vending would not be
expected to occur, and DOE used 6 hours as a representative duration of
time for such a period. The energy consumption from the beginning of
the window until the cabinet temperature had risen to a particular
average next-to-vend temperature Tmax was added to the
pulldown energy use from that same Tmax back to within the
DOE test specified 36 [deg]F 1 [deg]F average next-to-vend
temperature. Tmax was selected such that the time spent in
the low power mode plus the time spent to pull down was as close to 6
hours as possible within the resolution of the data, without being over
6 hours. The low power mode energy consumption was calculated as the
sum of the energy consumption during the period when the temperature
was ``out-of-bounds,'' the energy consumption in that portion
[[Page 46926]]
of the pulldown, and, in order to account for the fact that lighting
low power modes were employed with refrigeration low power modes, the
amount of lighting energy that would have been used for normal
operation in active vending mode was assumed during the duration of the
low power mode. A DEC value was generated by using the ``out-of-
bounds'' energy consumption and the time-averaged steady state energy
consumption from the DOE test procedure scaled by the remaining time to
24 hours. The percent savings from the refrigeration low power mode was
then calculated by comparing this DEC to the DEC results of the DOE
test procedure for the same unit.
Using this method, the energy savings from refrigeration low power
modes in units tested averaged approximately 2.4%. DOE estimated that
its methodology was conservative, because the out of bounds time used
in the calculations was always less than the 6 hours out of bounds time
being used as representative of typical applications. Therefore, DOE
rounded up, using 3% as an estimate of savings attributable to
refrigeration low power modes. In light of this initial investigation,
DOE believes that 3 percent is representative of the refrigeration low
power mode that is activated such that the average next-to-vend
temperature is raised for a total of 6 hours, including both low power
mode and pull-down, and therefore aligns with the methodology DOE is
proposing for testing of other low power modes. DOE believes that a
calculated energy credit will provide a reasonable representation of
refrigeration low power modes without sacrificing test procedure
repeatability, favoring specific technologies, or unnecessarily
increasing burden.
d. Refrigeration Low Power Mode Verification Test Protocol
DOE recognizes that a calculated energy credit will not account for
differences in performance or efficacy among different types of
refrigeration low power modes and will not objectively verify the
performance or existence of a refrigerated low power mode. Therefore, a
procedure to verify the existence of a refrigeration low power mode, as
defined, may be required to prevent BVM models from taking the 3
percent refrigeration low power mode credit without an effective
refrigeration low power mode included in that BVM model. Such a
refrigeration low power mode verification test method would include
initiating the refrigeration low power mode after completion of the 24-
hour BVM test period, including the 18-hour active vending test period
and the 6-hour low power mode test period, and recording the average
temperature of the standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage
positions for the next 2 hours. Over the course of this 2-hour period,
the instantaneous average next-to-vend beverage temperatures, that is
the spatial average of all next-to-vend beverages, must increase above
40 [deg]F and remain above 40 [deg]F for at least one hour. The
refrigerated beverage vending machine must also be capable of
automatically returning itself to its normal operating conditions at
the conclusion of the refrigeration low power mode. Therefore, at the
conclusion of the 2-hour refrigeration low power mode verification test
period, the refrigerated beverage vending machine must return to normal
vending temperatures automatically without direct physical intervention
by testing personnel. DOE notes that this validation test is not
required to verify the DEC of BVM models but will be employed by DOE
for enforcement purposes to verify the existence of a refrigeration low
power mode.
e. DOE's Proposed Low Power Mode Test Method
After considering the various methods, DOE determined that the
calculation-based approach to accounting for refrigeration low power
modes is the best methodology available to ensure accuracy of
representation of energy use, consistent and equitable treatment among
models and repeatability of the test procedure without making the test
method unduly burdensome to conduct. In contrast, DOE is proposing to
establish a physical test that consists of a 6-hour time period that
allows accessory low power modes that automatically disable or adjust
lighting, displays, or other low power mode systems to be enabled to
account for accessory low power modes, and a separate calculation
approach to account for refrigeration low power modes.
Under this proposal, equipment with a low power mode would
stabilize and operate under normal test procedure conditions, with all
equipment and accessories energized as they would be when the equipment
is capable of actively refrigerating and vending sealed beverages and
as specified in section III.A.11, for the first 18 hours of the test
period. In addition, unless specified otherwise by another portion of
the test procedure, DOE is proposing that all low power mode control
features that cannot be disabled, but can be adjusted, are to be
adjusted such that the DEC is maximized, to best represent the likely
performance of the equipment in the field in active vending mode. DOE
is also proposing to adopt in its test procedure a modification to
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 requiring that any party performing the test
procedure provide, if necessary, any physical stimuli or other input to
the machine that may be needed to prevent automatic activation of low
power modes during the vending state test period. Such stimuli could
include creating movement near a unit being tested or pressing a
selection button on the machine (without vending a test package). In
the example above, in which the lights on a particular BVM dim after
extended inactivity, the setting specified would be the one with the
longest period of inactivity required before the lights would dim and
periodic physical stimuli would be needed based on that period to
prevent the lights from dimming. This would be most representative of
the energy use of the equipment in active vending mode, when the
equipment is capable of refrigerating and dispensing sealed beverages.
For equipment with a low power mode, the low power mode may be
enabled for no more than the final 6 hours of the test, or from hour 18
to hour 24 of the 24-hour test. The 6-hour low power mode test period
is intended to represent off hours between two periods of vending. The
low power mode should account for both refrigeration system low power
modes and accessory low power modes. While there is a wide range of
types of low power mode controls and time periods, for which these
controls are enabled, DOE believes a timeframe of 6 hours is a
reasonable representation of average field use.
To determine the measured DEC of a given BVM model equipped with a
refrigeration low power mode, the energy use measured during the 24-
hour BVM test procedure, including the 6-hour accessory low power mode
test period if applicable, will be reduced by 3 percent (or multiplied
by 0.97).
Under this proposal, the rating metric for all equipment would
continue to be the energy use measured during the total 24-hour test
period, including any calculated adjustments.
Further, DOE proposes adopting a refrigeration low power mode
validation procedure, to verify the existence and performance of the
refrigeration low power mode on applicable BVM models. However, this
refrigeration low power mode validation procedure will not be required
for manufacturer certifications of compliance and will only be used to
confirm the existence of
[[Page 46927]]
a refrigeration low power mode for the purposes of applying the
refrigeration low power mode credit.
f. Equipment With Multiple Energy Use States
DOE recognizes that its proposal to only recognize and account for
three operating modes, that is, refrigeration system low power mode,
accessory low power mode, and active vending mode, may not account for
equipment with multiple energy use states. For example, some equipment
may have controls that automatically adjust lighting levels during
periods of lower vending activity, such as times during a facility's
normal operating hours when few or no purchases are occurring, in
addition to the more dramatic low power mode that is engaged when the
facility is closed. This situation may be representative of field use
in some situations, such as schools, where there may be times of
concentrated activity during the day interspersed with periods of
inactivity during which a partial low power mode is entered.
DOE considered several approaches to account for these types of
vending state low power modes. The first of these approaches is to
permit an additional time period within the BVM test procedure during
which lighting and control settings are permitted to be at
manufacturer-recommended rather than maximum-energy-use settings and
during which external inputs to prevent low power modes are not
required. This could, for example, constitute 9 hours, or one-half of
the remaining vending state test period after the 6-hour low power mode
test period has been taken into account.
The second of these approaches is to continue allowing a single low
power mode test period in the DOE test procedure, and to also offer a
calculation-based energy offset to those machines equipped with
additional low power modes designed to operate during active vending
periods when the beverage vending machine is capable of dispensing
sealed beverages at the intended vending temperature (36 1
[deg]F). This method would include calculation of the direct and
indirect energy use associated with such vending state low power modes.
To implement such a method, default assumptions would be necessary for
the following variables:
(1) The length of time vending state low power modes are employed,
(2) the efficiency of the compressor,
(3) the features generally controlled by a vending state low power
mode, and
(4) the portion of energy produced from the lights or other
features that becomes heat in the case and increases the refrigeration
load.
After consideration, DOE has decided to propose the methodology in
which equipment is prohibited from entering low power modes of any kind
outside of the 6-hour low power mode test period. A wide range of
energy management systems are available in beverage vending machines,
and DOE believes that an 18-hour time period representative of an
active, vending state at full power followed by a 6-hour low power mode
test period provides a consistent methodology for testing that is
applicable to the most BVM models and is reasonably representative of
field use. DOE also notes that the low power modes designed to operate
during vending periods, such as the lighting controls discussed above,
can be enabled during the low power mode test period and accounted for
in the same manner as any other low power mode operation. Only in the
case where a beverage vending machine is equipped with both a more
aggressive low power mode, designed for periods of facility closure,
and a partial low power mode, designed for periods of inactivity during
operating hours, will the operation of the two different low power
modes not be taken into account independently.
DOE requests comment on its proposal that units run at the most
energy-consuming lighting and control settings, except as specified in
section III.A.11, during the BVM test procedure, except for during the
6-hour low power mode test period.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require, as part of the
test procedure, whatever stimuli are necessary to prevent automatic
activation of low power modes during the vending state test procedure.
DOE requests comment on whether its proposed method is
representative of equipment that can use low power modes. DOE requests
comment as to whether the proposed method reflects typical field use.
DOE requests comment on whether 6 hours is an appropriate length of
time for the low power mode test period.
DOE requests information on the prevalence of non-cycling
(variable-speed) compressors in the BVM industry.
DOE requests comment on whether a credit equal to 3 percent of the
measured DEC is reflective of the 6 hours of time in refrigeration low
power mode.
DOE requests comment on the refrigeration low power mode validation
test and, particularly, if a one hour time period in which the
instantaneous average of all standard test packages in the next-to-vend
beverage position is maintained above 40 [deg]F is appropriate to
verify the performance of refrigeration low power modes.
DOE requests comment on whether a physical test method would be a
more representative and accurate method to account for low power mode
operation, including refrigeration low power mode.
IV. 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 OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory
flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities
and considers alternative ways of reducing negative effects. Also, 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, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR at 7990. DOE has
made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this proposed rule, which would amend the test
procedure for refrigerated beverage vending machines, under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE tentatively concludes and
certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not result in a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
factual basis for this certification is set forth below.
For the BVM manufacturing industry, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which
[[Page 46928]]
defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the
purpose of the statute. DOE used the SBA's size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be required to comply with the rule.
The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards
are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code and industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. BVM manufacturers are
classified under NAICS 333318, ``Other Commercial and Service Industry
Machinery Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees
or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this
category.
DOE conducted a market survey of small business manufacturers of
equipment covered by this rulemaking using all available public
information. DOE's research involved the review of individual company
Web sites and marketing research tools (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet
reports, Manta) to create a list of companies that manufacture or sell
beverage vending machines covered by this rulemaking. Using these
sources, DOE identified seven manufacturers of beverage vending
machines.
DOE then reviewed these data to determine whether the entities met
the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of beverage
vending machines and screened out companies that do not offer equipment
covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a ``small
business,'' or are foreign owned and operated. Based on this review,
DOE has identified five companies that would be considered small
manufacturers, which represents 71 percent of the national BVM
manufacturers.
Table IV.1 stratifies the small businesses according to their
number of employees. The smallest company has 2 employees and the
largest company has 375 employees. The majority of the small businesses
affected by this rulemaking (80 percent) have fewer than 200 employees.
According to DOE's analysis, annual revenues associated with these
small manufacturers were estimated at $107.3 million ($21.5 million
average annual revenue per small manufacturer).
Table--IV.1 Small Business Size by Number of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of small Percentage of Cumulative
Number of employees businesses small businesses percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-25................................................... 2 40.0% 40.0%
26-50.................................................. 0 0.0 40.0
51-75.................................................. 1 20.0 60.0
76-100................................................. 0 0.0 60.0
101-200................................................ 1 20.0 80.0
201-300................................................ 0 0.0 80.0
301-400................................................ 1 20.0 100.0
401-500................................................ 0 0.0 100.0
501-1000............................................... 0 0.0 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This NOPR proposes to update the industry test procedures
referenced in the DOE test procedure for refrigerated beverage vending
machines. In addition, DOE proposes to do the following:
(1) Eliminate the requirement of a test performed at the 90 [deg]F
ambient test condition;
(2) establish a procedure to test combination vending machines;
(3) clarify how to load the vending machine models when conducting
the DOE test procedure;
(4) specify the characteristics of the standard product;
(5) clarify the next-to-vend temperature test condition;
(6) establish a definition of ``fully cooled'' to more clearly
differentiate Class A and Class B equipment;
(7) specify the placement of thermocouples during testing;
(8) add provisions to allow for refrigerated beverage vending
machines that cannot achieve the currently prescribed 36 [deg]F average
of next-to-vend beverage temperatures to be tested at the lowest
application product temperature;
(9) clarify the treatment of specific components and accessories in
the test procedure; and
(10) add a method to account for energy impacts of low power modes.
All beverage vending machines covered by this proposed rule are
currently required to be tested using the DOE test procedure to show
compliance with established energy conservation standards.
Manufacturers must use the DOE test procedure established in the 2006
BVM test procedure final rule to demonstrate compliance with existing
standards. That test procedure incorporates by reference ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 and consists of one 24-hour
test at standard rating conditions to determine DEC of covered beverage
vending machines during a representative cycle of use. 71 FR 71340,
71355 (Dec. 8, 2006). DOE estimates the cost of conducting the DOE test
procedure as $5,000 per 24-hour test.
Six of the amendments proposed in this test procedure NOPR will not
change the testing burden for covered equipment. These include the
amendments discussing the test procedure for combination vending
machines, loading the vending machines when conducting the test
procedure, specifying the characteristics of the standard test package,
clarifying the next-to-vend temperature test condition, establishing a
definition of ``fully cooled,'' and specifying the placement of
thermocouples during testing. Specifically, the amendments regarding
the next-to-vend temperature condition and the definition of ``fully
cooled'' serve only to establish new definitions that will clarify
DOE's existing test procedure requirements.
This test procedure NOPR also proposes five amendments to the
current DOE test procedure that may impact the test procedure burden.
The expected incremental increases or decreases of costs for conducting
the test procedure specific to each amendment proposed are discussed
below.
As discussed in section III.A.1, updating the referenced industry
test procedures will not change the test procedure burden because it
will not change the technical requirements of the test procedure.
Eliminating testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition should
substantially lessen the testing burden on manufacturers, as it
decreases the
[[Page 46929]]
testing requirements from two tests, totaling approximately 120 hours
duration, to one test of approximately 60 hours duration. DOE estimates
the decrease in burden to be 10 hours of labor and 60 hours of facility
use, which reduces the testing cost for each beverage vending machine
unit by roughly $2,500, or half the cost of conducting the existing
test procedure.
Establishing a definition and associated verification test method
for determining if a given BVM model is ``fully cooled'' is not
required for product certification. However, if manufacturers were to
elect to verify equipment classification using this optional procedure,
the incremental burden associated with doing so would be the placement
and recording of temperature for 4 additional standard test packages.
DOE estimates this cost as $5 in material costs and 4 hours of an
engineer's time for each standard test package, which can be amortized
over the total number of tested models. In addition, DOE estimates the
incremental cost of a thermocouple and associated length of
thermocouple wire as $30 per standard test package. The incremental
burden associated with placing these additional standard test packages
is estimated as approximately 30 minutes of an engineer's time for each
test. DOE estimated the cost of an engineer's time based on an average
hourly salary of $41.44 for an engineer completing this task.\11\
Fringe benefits are estimated at 30 percent of total compensation,
which brings the hourly costs to employers to $53.87.\12\ DOE does not
believe the additional calculations will induce any incremental burden
when performing the DOE test procedure. In total, this optional test
would increase the average test burden by approximately $61.18 for each
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012.
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Washington, DC.
Available at www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#17-0000.
\12\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013.
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--Management, Professional,
and Related Employees. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing testing provisions at the lowest application product
temperature affects only a very small percentage of equipment on the
market, estimated to be less than 2 percent of shipments. Manufacturers
who make equipment affected by this provision should experience a
decrease in burden because they will no longer have to seek waivers for
equipment that cannot maintain the 36 [deg]F 1 [deg]F
average next-to-vend temperature for the duration of the test. For
these manufacturers, DOE estimates a savings of 4 hours of labor for
each BVM model, or $215.48 per model. DOE bases its estimate on the
average hourly compensation for an engineer of $53.87, as previously
estimated.
Clarifying the treatment of various and components and accessories
in the DOE test procedure should not alter the technical requirements
of the DOE test procedure, since these additional specifications are
meant to clarify existing requirements. However, DOE understands that
the treatment of some of these accessories and components may have been
inconsistent due to lack of clarity or misinterpretation of the DOE
test procedure. Therefore, DOE is accounting for the incremental burden
associated with properly configuring BVM models for testing in
accordance with these new component specifications. The specific
clarifications pertain to money-processing equipment, interior
lighting, external displays and screens, anti-sweat heaters, condensate
pan heaters and pumps, illuminated temperature displays, condenser
filters, security covers, coated coils, general purpose outlets, and
crankcase heaters and electric resistance heaters for cold weather. The
adjustments to these accessories will require additional attention by
test personnel. DOE estimates that it may require up to an additional
hour to make all the applicable adjustments before testing begins. DOE
estimates the incremental costs associated with adjusting accessories
as $53.87 for each tested model, based on the assumption that it would
take an additional hour of an engineer's time to attend to the tested
model at the same labor rate assumed previously, $53.87 per hour.
Amendments in this NOPR expanding the testing methodology to
incorporate lighting and control settings to account for low power
modes will require additional attention by test personnel.
Specifically, DOE estimates it will require 1 hour to identify the
appropriate time to initiate the low power mode test period and make
any necessary adjustments to begin low power mode operation at that
time. During the active vending mode test procedure, DOE estimates that
it will take a maximum of 10 additional hours of an engineer's time to
periodically monitor the operation of the tested unit and interact with
the unit if necessary to ensure that the unit does not re-enter a low
power mode state. DOE does not believe that multiplying the DEC by 0.97
will increase the burden associated with conducting the DOE test
procedure. However, DOE is also proposing an optional refrigeration low
power mode verification test that manufacturers may elect to perform to
ensure their equipment meets the requirements of a refrigeration low
power mode, which would increase the test burden. DOE estimates that
this test would require an additional 4 hours of test time, 2 hours to
allow the refrigeration low power mode to initiate and maintain the
adjusted refrigeration state and an assumed 2 hours to return to 36
1 [deg]F to verify that the BVM model can automatically
return to vending conditions. DOE estimates the incremental costs
associated with conducting the low power mode test as $592.57 for each
model tested, based on the assumption that it would take an engineer an
additional 11 hours to attend to the tested model at the same labor
rate assumed previously, $53.87 per hour. If also accounting for the
optional refrigeration low power mode verification test method, the
incremental cost of the low power mode test procedure amendments
increases to $808.05.
All of the amendments and clarifications proposed in this NOPR,
taken together, will result in an overall reduction in burden for
manufacturers conducting the DOE test procedure due, primarily, to the
removal of the requirement to test at the 90 [deg]F ambient condition.
On average, the cost of testing covered beverage vending machines would
be reduced by approximately $1,900 per model, or by 40 percent per
manufacturer, not including the optional tests that are not required
for certification of BVM models.
DOE believes that the proposed test procedure amendments would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities due to decreased testing cost burden. Therefore, the
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. DOE
will transmit 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).
DOE requests comment on its certification that the proposed test
procedure changes will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of refrigerated beverage vending machines must
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy
conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must
test their
[[Page 46930]]
equipment according to the DOE test procedure for refrigerated beverage
vending machines, including any amendments adopted for that test
procedure. DOE has established regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including beverage vending machines. 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. The 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
In this proposed rule, DOE proposes amendments to its test
procedure that may be used to implement future energy conservation
standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines. 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 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The rule is covered
by Categorical Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that interpret or amend an
existing rule without changing the environmental effect, as set forth
in DOE's NEPA regulations in appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021.
This rule will not affect the quality or distribution of energy usage
and therefore will not result in any environmental impacts.
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 Federal 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 has examined this
proposed rule and has determined that it would 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 proposed
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 review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed 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;
Pub.104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of
Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and
the private sector. For proposed regulatory actions likely to result in
a rule that may cause expenditures 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 estimates of 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. (This policy
is also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.) DOE
reviewed today's proposed rule pursuant to UMRA and its policy, and DOE
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. Accordingly, no further assessment or analysis is
required under UMRA.
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.
This rule would 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.
[[Page 46931]]
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed
regulation, if promulgated as a final rule, would not result in any
takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the 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 Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines
issued by OMB. The OMB's guidelines were published in 67 FR 8452 (Feb.
22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published in 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7,
2002). DOE has reviewed today's proposed 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
OIRA, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects
for any proposed 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
proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to
the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution,
and use.
This regulatory action to amend the test procedure for refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machines is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order.
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 for this rulemaking.
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), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275), as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-70).
Section 32 provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. (15 U.S.C. 788 section 32) In addition, section 32(c)
requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on competition.
This proposed rule incorporates testing methods contained in the
following commercial standard: ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010,
``Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Sealed
Beverages.'' DOE has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude
whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the
Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., whether they were developed in
a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and
review).
As required by section 32(c) of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974 as amended, DOE will consult with the Attorney General and
the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission about the impact on
competition of requiring manufacturers to use the test methods
contained in this standard prior to prescribing a final rule.
V. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If
you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards
at (202) 586-2945 or [email protected].
Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are
subject to advance security screening procedures. Any foreign national
wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as
possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary
procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring laptops into
the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass.
Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes.
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar
registration information, participant instructions, and information
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE's Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/73. Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar
software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred),
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this NOPR. The request and advance copy of statements must be
received at least one week before the public meeting and may be
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone
number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the
proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the
public meeting,
[[Page 46932]]
allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and
encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket,
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning
of this NOPR. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript
from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this NOPR.
Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for the test
procedure for refrigerated beverage vending machines and provide docket
number EE-2013-BT-TP-0045 and/or regulatory information number (RIN)
number 1904-AD07.
Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web
page will require you to provide your name and contact information.
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE
may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy
of the document marked confidential including all the information
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
[[Page 46933]]
(1) DOE requests comment on the proposal to update its test
procedure to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010.
(2) DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the referenced
method of test for the measurement of refrigerated volume in its test
procedure from section 5 of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 to Appendix C of ANSI/
ASHRAE 3.1-2010.
(3) DOE requests comment on whether the methodology in Appendix C
of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 for the measurement of refrigerated
volume is more appropriate for beverage vending machines than the
methodology outlined in section 4 of AHAM HRF-1-2008.
(4) DOE requests comment on its proposal to eliminate the
requirement to conduct testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition.
(5) DOE requests comment on the applicability of the existing test
procedure, as clarified, to combination vending machines.
(6) DOE proposes to add language to the DOE test procedure in
Appendix A and Appendix B to clarify the loading requirements for
covered BVM models.
(7) DOE requests comment on the proposed clarification that the
standard product shall be 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles, for BVM
models that are capable of holding cans or bottles, respectively,
filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 g/mL 0.1 g/mL
at 36 [deg]F.
(8) DOE requests comment on the need to maintain the flexibility of
specifying the standard product as that specified by the manufacturer
for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines that are
not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles. DOE
specifically requests examples of BVM models that might require this
flexibility and what type of standard products they are tested with
currently.
(9) DOE requests comment on the sufficiency of the existing
requirements regarding standard test packages. If the existing language
is not sufficiently clear, DOE requests comments and recommendations
regarding what additional clarifications might be necessary to ensure
consistency and repeatability of test results.
(10) DOE also requests comment on its proposed definition of
``integrated average temperature'' for beverage vending machines.
(11) DOE requests comment on whether the proposed definition for
``integrated average temperature'' aligns with standard practice in
industry, and whether any manufacturers have been maintaining the 36
[deg]F ( 1 [deg]F) next-to-vend temperature constantly
throughout the test used for DOE certification.
(12) DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of ``fully
cooled.'' DOE would appreciate comment as to whether the proposed
definition aligns with the classifications of Class A and Class B
equipment used in industry.
(13) DOE requests comment on the proposed fully cooled validation
test method. Specifically, DOE requests comment as to whether 10 [deg]F
is an appropriate threshold to differentiate fully cooled equipment and
any incremental burden on manufacturers associated with the optional
test method for determining if a BVM model meets the definition of
``fully cooled.''
(14) DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt a lowest
application product temperature provision for covered beverage vending
machines that cannot be tested at the specified average next-to-vend
temperature of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F).
(15) DOE also requests comment on how the lowest application
product temperature might be best determined for beverage vending
machines and whether the lowest thermostat setting is a reasonable
approach for most equipment. DOE requests comment on how to determine
the lowest application product temperature for equipment without
thermostats.
(16) DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow covered
equipment that cannot maintain the 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F)
average next-to-vend temperature to be tested at the lowest application
product temperature without requesting a DOE waiver.
(17) DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify in Appendix A
and B that internal lighting shall be operated in the maximum energy
consuming state under the DOE test procedure.
(18) DOE requests comment on whether the maximum energy consuming
state for internal lighting is consistent with ``normal'' operation.
(19) DOE requests comment on the range of equipment that should be
addressed in this category of accessories and if the proposed
terminology of customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens is
sufficient to capture the variety of similar auxiliary energy-consuming
accessories that might be installed on BVM models.
(20) DOE requests comment on the treatment of external and integral
customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens in Appendix A.
(21) DOE requests comment on the proposed treatment of external and
integral customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens in
Appendix B. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether disabling
external devices and placing integral devices in standby mode or their
lowest energy-consuming state is sufficiently representative of the
energy use of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
(22) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of standby
mode as the mode of operation in which the external, integral customer
display signs, lighting, or digital screens is connected to mains
power, does not produce the intended illumination, display, or
interaction functionality, and can be switched into another mode
automatically with only a remote user-generated or an internal signal.
(23) For digital screens that also perform the vending or money-
processing function, DOE requests comment on the proposal to place
these screens in their lowest energy-consuming state that still allows
the money-processing feature to function.
(24) DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify the treatment
of accessories in the DOE test procedure.
(25) DOE also requests comment on any other accessories that may
require special treatment or exemption.
(26) DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of ``low
power mode,'' ``refrigeration low power mode,'' and ``accessory low
power mode.''
(27) DOE requests comment on its proposal that units run at the
most energy-consuming lighting and control settings, except as
specified in section III.A.11, during the BVM test procedure, except
for during the 6-hour low power mode test period.
(28) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require, as part of
the test procedure, whatever stimuli are necessary to prevent automatic
activation of low power modes during the vending state test procedure.
(29) DOE requests comment on its proposed method for accounting for
equipment that can use low power modes. DOE requests comment as to
whether this proposed method reflects typical field use.
(30) DOE requests comment on whether 6 hours is an appropriate
length of time for the low power mode test period.
(31) DOE requests information on the prevalence of non-cycling
(variable-speed) compressors in the BVM industry.
(32) DOE requests comment on whether a credit equal to 3 percent of
the measured DEC is reflective of the 6 hours of time in refrigeration
low power mode.
(33) DOE requests comment on the refrigeration low power mode
validation
[[Page 46934]]
test and, particularly, if a one hour time period in which the
instantaneous average of all standard test packages in the next-to-vend
beverage position is maintained above 40 [deg]F is appropriate to
verify the performance of refrigeration low power modes.
(34) DOE requests comment on whether a physical test method would
be a more representative and accurate method to account for low power
mode operation, including refrigeration low-power mode.
(35) DOE requests comment on its certification that the proposed
test procedure changes will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 1, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE is proposing to
amend parts 429 and 431 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Section 429.52 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.52 Refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall
include the following additional product-specific information: When
using Appendix A of this part, the daily energy consumption in kilowatt
hours per day (kWh/day), the refrigerated volume (V) in cubic feet
(ft\3\), and the lowest application product temperature, if applicable.
When using Appendix B, the daily energy consumption in kilowatt hours
per day (kWh/day), the refrigerated volume (V) in cubic feet (ft\3\),
whether testing was conducted using an accessory low power mode,
whether testing was conducted using a refrigeration low power mode,
and, if applicable, the lowest application product temperature.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
3. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
4. Section 431.291 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 431.291 Scope.
This subpart specifies test procedures and energy conservation
standards for certain commercial refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines, pursuant to part A of Title III of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309.
The regulatory provisions of Sec. Sec. 430.33 and 430.34 and subparts
D and E of 10 CFR part 430 of this chapter are applicable to
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
0
5. Section 431.292 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions for ``Fully cooled,'' ``Integrated average temperature,''
and ``Lowest application product temperature,'' to read as follows:
Sec. 431.292 Definitions concerning refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines.
* * * * *
Fully cooled means a condition in which the refrigeration system of
a beverage vending machine cools product throughout the entire
refrigerated volume of a machine instead of being directed at a
fraction (or zone) of the refrigerated volume as measured by the
average temperature of the standard test packages in the furthest from
the next-to-vend positions being no more than 10 [deg]F above the
integrated average temperature of the standard test packages.
Integrated average temperature means the average temperature of all
standard test package measurements in the next-to-vend beverage
positions taken during the test, expressed in degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F).
Lowest application product temperature means the lowest integrated
average temperature a given basic model is capable of maintaining so as
to comply with the temperature stabilization requirements specified in
section 7.2.2.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.293).
* * * * *
0
6. Section 431.293 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and removing
and reserving paragraph (b)(2).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 431.293 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1''),
``Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Sealed
Beverages,'' approved June 26, 2010, IBR approved for appendices A and
B to subpart Q.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 431.294 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.294 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
consumption of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending
machines.
* * * * *
(b) Testing and calculations. Determine the daily energy
consumption of each covered refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machine by conducting the appropriate test procedure set forth
in appendix A or B to this subpart.
Sec. 431.296 [Amended]
0
8. Section 431.296 is amended by removing the word ``maximum'' after
``shall have a'' in the introductory text
0
9. Subpart Q of part 431 is amended by adding appendices A and B to
read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Refrigerated Bottled or Canned
Beverage Vending Machines
Note: After [date 30 days after publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register] and prior to [date 180 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register],
manufacturers must make any representations with respect to the
energy use or efficiency of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machines in accordance with the results of testing pursuant
to this Appendix A or the procedures in 10 CFR 431.294 as it
appeared
[[Page 46935]]
in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1,
2014. After [date 180 days after date of publication of the final
rule], manufacturers must make any representations with respect to
energy use or efficiency in accordance with the results of testing
pursuant to this appendix to demonstrate compliance with the energy
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.296, for which compliance was
required as of August 31, 2012.
1. General. Section 3, ``Definitons,'' and section 4,
``Instruments,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference; see
Sec. 431.293) apply to this appendix. In cases where there is a
conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes
precedence over ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1.
2. Test Procedure.
2.1. Test Conditions.
2.1.1. Equipment Loading. Configure refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines to hold the maximum number of standard
products and place a standard test package in each next-to-vend
position.
2.1.1.1. Standard Products. The standard product shall be standard
12-ounce aluminum beverage cans filled with a liquid with a density of
1.0 grams per milliliter (g/mL) 0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For
product storage racks that are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans,
but are capable of holding 20-ounce bottles, the standard product shall
be 20-ounce plastic bottles filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0
g/mL 0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For product storage racks that
are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles, the
standard product shall be the packaging and contents specified by the
manufacturer as the standard product (i.e., the specific merchandise
the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine is designed
to vend).
2.1.1.2. Standard Test Packages. A standard test package is a
standard product, as specified in 2.1.1.1, altered to include a
temperature-measuring instrument at its center of mass.
2.1.2. Average Beverage Temperature. The integrated average
temperature measured during the test must be within 1
[deg]F of the average beverage temperature specified in section 6.1 of
ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.293) (i.e.,
36 [deg]F) or the lowest application product temperature for models
tested in accordance with paragraph 2.1.4 of this appendix.
2.1.3. Ambient Test Conditions. Test the refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machine at the test condition of 75 [deg]F
2 [deg]F (23.9 [deg]C 1 [deg]C) ambient
temperature and 45 percent 5 percent relative humidity.
2.1.4. Lowest Application Product Temperature. If a refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine is not capable of
maintaining an integrated average temperature of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F), the unit must be tested at the lowest application
product temperature, as defined in Sec. 431.292. For refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machines equipped with a thermostat,
the lowest application product temperature is the integrated average
temperature achieved at the lowest thermostat setting.
2.2. Determination of Daily Energy Consumption. Except as provided
in this appendix, the test procedure for energy consumption of
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines shall be
conducted in accordance with the methods specified in section 6, ``Test
Conditions;'' and sections 7.1 through 7.2.3.2 under ``Test
Procedures'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
431.293).
2.2.1. Temperature Measurement. The integrated average temperature
of next-to-vend beverages shall be measured in a standard test packages
in each next-to-vend position for each selection, as specified in
section 7.2.2.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.293). Do not run thermocouple wire and other measurement
apparatus through the dispensing door; thermocouple wire and other
measurement apparatus may be run through the gasket, provided that the
gasket is fully compressed around the intruding wire and sealed to
minimize air flow between the interior refrigerated volume and the
ambient room air.
2.2.2. Accessories. All standard components that would be used
during normal operation of the model in the field shall be in place
during testing and shall be set to the maximum energy-consuming setting
if manually adjustable, except that the specific components and
accessories listed in the subsequent sections shall be operated as
stated. Instead of testing pursuant to section 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE
32.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.293), provide, if
necessary, any physical stimuli or other input to the machine needed to
prevent automatic activation of energy management systems that can be
adjusted by the machine operator during the test period. Automatic
energy management systems that cannot be adjusted by the machine
operator may be enabled, as specified by section 7.2.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE
32.1.
2.2.2.1 Money-Processing Devices. Money-processing devices must be
in place and functional during testing.
2.2.2.2. Internal Lighting. All lighting that is contained within
or is part of the internal physical boundary of the refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine, as established by the top,
bottom, and side panels of the equipment, shall be placed in its
maximum energy consuming state.
2.2.2.3. External Customer Display Signs, Lighting, and Digital
Screens. All external customer display signs, lighting, and digital
screens that are independent from the refrigeration or vending
performance of the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending
machine must be disconnected, disabled, or otherwise de-energized for
the duration of testing. Customer display signs, lighting, and digital
screens that are integrated into the BVM cabinet or controls such that
they cannot be de-energized without disabling the refrigeration or
vending functions of the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage
vending machine or modifying the circuitry must be placed in their
lowest energy-consuming state. This includes television displays and
other supplemental lighting that exists for advertising or display
purposes. Digital displays that also serve a vending or money-
processing function must be placed in the lowest energy-consuming state
that still allows the money-processing feature to function.
2.2.2.4. Anti-sweat and Other Electric Resistance Heaters. Anti-
sweat and other electric resistance heaters must be operational during
the entirety of the test procedure. Models with a user-selectable
setting must have the heaters energized and set to the maximum usage
position. Models featuring an automatic, non-user-adjustable controller
that turns on or off based on environmental conditions must be
operating in the automatic state.
2.2.2.5. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps. All electric resistance
condensate heaters and condensate pumps must be installed and
operational during the test. Prior to the start of the stabilization
period, as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.293), the condensate pan must be dry. Following the start of
the stabilization period, allow any condensate moisture generated to
accumulate in the pan. Do not manually add or remove water from the
condensate pan at any time during the test.
2.2.2.6. Illuminated Temperature Displays. All illuminated
temperature displays shall be energized and operated
[[Page 46936]]
during the test as they would be during normal field operation.
2.2.2.7. Condenser Filters. Remove any nonpermanent filters
provided to prevent particulates from blocking a model's condenser
coil.
2.2.2.8. Security Covers. Remove any devices used to secure the
model from theft or tampering.
2.2.2.9. General Purpose Outlets. During the test, do not connect
any external load to any general purpose outlets available on a unit.
2.2.2.10. Crankcase Heaters and Other Electric Resistance Heaters
for Cold Weather. Crankcase heaters and other electric resistance
heaters for cold weather must be operational during the test. If a
control system, such as a thermostat or electronic controller, is used
to modulate the operation of the heater, it must be activated during
the test.
3. Determination of Refrigerated Volume and Vendible Capacity.
3.1. Determine ``refrigerated volume'' of refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines in accordance with Appendix C,
``Measurement of Volume,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.293). For combination vending machines, the
``refrigerated volume'' is only that portion of the refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is actively
refrigerated.
3.2. Determine ``vendible capacity'' of refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines in accordance with the first paragraph
of section 5, ``Vending Machine Capacity,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1,
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.293). For combination vending
machines, the ``vendible capacity'' is the entire volume from which
product may be vended, whether or not that volume is refrigerated.
4. Verification of Fully Cooled Refrigerated Bottled or Canned
Beverage Vending Machines.
To determine if a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending
machine model is fully cooled, install standard test packages in the
furthest from the next-to-vend positions. For a beverage vending
machine with horizontal product rows, or spirals, this would require a
standard test package at the back of the horizontal product rows in the
four corners of the machine (e.g., bottom right, bottom left, top
right, and top left). For a beverage vending machine with standard
products configured in a vertical stack, this would require a standard
test package at the top of each stack. Calculate the average
temperature of all the standard test packages in the furthest from the
next-to-vend position over the entire test period. Subtract this value
from the integrated average temperature of standard test packages in
the next-to-vend beverage positions. If the difference between these
two values is less than or equal to 10 [deg]F, the tested unit is fully
cooled.
Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Refrigerated Bottled or Canned
Beverage Vending Machines
Note: After [date 30 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register] and prior to [date 180 days after publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register], manufacturers must make
any representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines in
accordance with the results of testing pursuant to Appendix A or the
procedures in 10 CFR 431.294 as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200
to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2014. After [date 180 days
after date of publication of the final rule], manufacturers must
make any representations with respect to energy use or efficiency in
accordance with the results of testing pursuant to Appendix A of
this Subpart to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation
standards at 10 CFR 431.296, for which compliance was required as of
August 31, 2012.
Alternatively, manufacturers may make representations based on
testing in accordance with this appendix prior to the compliance date
of any amended energy conservation standards, provided that such
representations demonstrate compliance with such amended energy
conservation standards. Any representations made on or after the
compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards, must be
made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to Appendix B.
1. General.
1.1 In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the test
procedure in this appendix takes precedence over ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.293).
1.2. Definitions. Section 3, ``Definitions,'' and section 4,
``Instruments,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.293) apply to this appendix.
Accessory low power mode means a state in which a beverage vending
machine's lighting and/or other energy-using systems, except the
refrigeration system, are in low power mode. This may include, but is
not limited to, dimming or turning off lights but does not include
adjustment of the refrigeration system.
Low power mode means a state in which a beverage vending machine's
lighting, refrigeration, and/or other energy-using systems are
automatically adjusted (without user intervention) such that they
consume less energy than they consume in an active vending environment.
Refrigeration low power mode means a state in which a beverage
vending machine's refrigeration system is in low power mode. To qualify
as low power mode, the average next-to-vend temperature must
automatically (without user intervention) rise to at least 4 [deg]F
above the integrated average temperature or lowest application product
temperature, as applicable, and remain above this threshold for at
least one hour.
Standby mode means the mode of operation in which any external,
integral customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens are
connected to mains power; do not produce the intended illumination,
display, or interaction functionality; and can be switched into another
mode automatically with only a remote user-generated or an internal
signal.
2. Test Procedure.
2.1. Test Conditions.
2.1.1. Equipment Loading. Configure refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machines to hold the maximum number of standard
products, and place a standard test package in each next-to-vend
position. For combination vending machines, only load the refrigerated
volume with standard test packages.
2.1.1.1. Standard Products. The standard product shall be standard
12-ounce aluminum beverage cans filled with a liquid with a density of
1.0 grams per milliliter (g/mL) 0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For
product storage racks that are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans,
but are capable of holding 20-ounce bottles, the standard product shall
be 20-ounce plastic bottles filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0
g/mL 0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For product storage racks that
are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles, the
standard product shall be the packaging and contents specified by the
manufacturer as the standard product (i.e., the specific merchandise
the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine is designed
to vend).
2.1.1.2. Standard Test Packages. A standard test package is a
standard product, as specified in 2.1.1.1, altered to include a
temperature-measuring instrument at its center of mass.
2.1.2. Average Beverage Temperature. The integrated average
temperature measured during the vending state test period must be
within 1 [deg]F of the
[[Page 46937]]
average beverage temperature specified in section 6.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE
32.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.293) (i.e., 36 [deg]F)
or the lowest application product temperature for models tested in
accordance with paragraph 2.1.4 of this appendix).
2.1.3. Ambient Test Conditions. Test the refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machine at the test condition of 75 [deg]F
2 [deg]F (23.9 [deg]C 1 [deg]C) ambient
temperature and 45 percent 5 percent relative humidity.
2.1.4. Lowest Application Product Temperature. If a refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine is not capable of
maintaining an integrated average temperature of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F), the unit must be tested at the lowest application
product temperature, as defined in Sec. 431.292. For refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machines equipped with a thermostat,
the lowest application product temperature is the integrated average
temperature achieved at the lowest thermostat setting.
2.2. Determination of Daily Energy Consumption. Except as provided
in this appendix, the test procedure for energy consumption of
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines shall be
conducted in accordance with the test procedures specified in section
6, ``Test Conditions;'' and sections 7.1 through 7.2.3.2 under ``Test
Procedures,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, ``Methods of Testing for Rating
Vending Machines Sealed Beverages'' (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.293). In section 7.2.3.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, the energy
consumed during the test (E T) shall be the energy measured
during the vending mode test period and accessory low power mode test
period, as specified in section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, as applicable.
2.2.1. Temperature Measurement. The integrated average temperature
of next-to-vend beverages shall be measured in a standard test packages
in each next-to-vend position for each selection, as specified in
section 7.2.2.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.293). Do not run thermocouple wire and other measurement
apparatus through the dispensing door; thermocouple wire and other
measurement apparatus may be run through the gasket such that the
gasket is fully compressed around the intruding wire and sealed to
minimize air flow between the interior refrigerated volume and the
ambient room air.
2.2.2. Vending Mode Test Period. The vending mode test period
begins immediately following the stabilization period and continues for
18 hours for equipment with an accessory low power mode or for 24 hours
for equipment without an accessory low power mode. For the vending mode
test period, equipment that has energy-saving features that cannot be
disabled shall be set to the most energy-consuming settings, except for
as specified in paragraph 2.2.4. In addition, all energy management
systems shall be disabled. Instead of testing pursuant to sections
7.1.1(d) and 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 431.293), provide, if necessary, any physical stimuli or
other input to the machine needed to prevent automatic activation of
low power modes during the vending mode test period.
2.2.3. Accessory Low Power Mode Test Period. For equipment with an
accessory low power mode the accessory low power mode may be engaged
for 6 hours, beginning 18 hours after the temperature stabilization
requirements established in ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.293) have been met, and continuing until the
end of the 24-hour test period. During the accessory low power mode
test, operate the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending
machine with the lowest energy-consuming lighting and control settings
that constitute an accessory low power mode. The specification and
tolerances for average beverage temperature in section 6.1 of ANSI/
ASHRAE 32.1 still apply, and any refrigeration low power mode must not
be engaged. Instead of testing pursuant to sections 7.1.1(d) and
7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, provide, if necessary, any physical
stimuli or other input to the machine needed to prevent automatic
activation of refrigeration low power modes during the vending mode
test period.
2.2.3.1. Refrigeration Low Power Mode. For refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines with a refrigeration low power mode
multiply the primary rated energy consumption per day (E T)
by 0.97 to determine the daily energy consumption of the unit tested.
2.2.4. Accessories. Unless specified otherwise in this appendix,
all standard components that would be used during normal operation of
the basic model in the field shall be in place during testing and shall
be set to the maximum energy-consuming setting if manually adjustable.
Components with controls that are permanently operational and cannot be
adjusted by the machine operator shall be operated in their normal
setting and consistent with the requirements of 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of this
appendix. The specific components and accessories listed in the
subsequent sections shall be operated as stated during the test, except
when controlled as part of a low power mode during the low power mode
test period.
2.2.4.1 Money-Processing Devices. Money-processing devices must be
in place and functional during testing.
2.2.4.2. Internal Lighting. All lighting that is contained within
or is part of the internal physical boundary of the refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine, as established by the top,
bottom, and side panels of the equipment, shall be placed in its
maximum energy consuming state.
2.2.4.3. External Customer Display Signs, Lights, and Digital
Screens. All external customer display signs, lighting, and digital
screens that are independent from the refrigeration or vending
performance of the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending
machine must be disconnected, disabled, or otherwise de-energized for
the duration of testing. Customer display signs, lighting, and digital
screens that are integrated into the beverage vending machine cabinet
or controls such that they cannot be de-energized without disabling the
refrigeration or vending functions of the refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machine or modifying the circuitry must be
placed in standby mode, if available, or their lowest energy-consuming
state. This includes television displays and other supplemental
lighting that exists for advertising or display purposes. Digital
displays that also serve a vending or money-processing function must be
placed in the lowest energy-consuming state that still allows the
money-processing feature to function.
2.2.4.4. Anti-sweat or Other Electric Resistance Heaters. Anti-
sweat or other electric resistance heaters must be operational during
the entirety of the test procedure. Models with a user-selectable
setting must have the heaters energized and set to the maximum usage
position. Models featuring an automatic, non-user-adjustable controller
that turns on or off based on environmental conditions must be
operating in the automatic state.
2.2.4.5. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps. All electric resistance
condensate heaters and condensate pumps must be installed and
operational during the test. Prior to the start of the stabilization
period, as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 431.293), the condensate pan must be dry. Following the start of
the stabilization period, allow any condensate moisture generated to
[[Page 46938]]
accumulate in the pan. Do not manually add or remove water from the
condensate pan at any time during the test. Any automatic controls that
initiate the operation of the condensate pan heater or pump based on
water level or ambient conditions must be enabled and operated in the
automatic setting.
2.2.4.6. Illuminated Temperature Displays. All illuminated
temperature displays shall be energized and operated during the test as
they would be during normal field operation.
2.2.4.7. Condenser Filters. Remove any nonpermanent filters
provided to prevent particulates from blocking a model's condenser
coil.
2.2.4.8. Security Covers. Remove any devices used to secure the
model from theft or tampering.
2.2.4.9. General Purpose Outlets. During the test, do not connect
any external load to any general purpose outlets available on a unit.
2.2.4.10. Crankcase Heaters and Other Electric Resistance Heaters
for Cold Weather. Crankcase heaters and other electric resistance
heaters for cold weather must be operational during the test. If a
control system, such as a thermostat or electronic controller, is used
to modulate the operation of the heater, it must be activated during
the test.
3. Determination of Refrigeration Volume and Vendible Capacity.
3.1. Determine ``refrigerated volume'' of refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines in accordance with Appendix C,
``Measurement of Volume,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 431.293). For combination vending machines, the
``refrigerated volume'' is only that portion of the refrigerated
bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is actively
refrigerated.
3.2. Determine ``vendible capacity'' of refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machines in accordance with the first paragraph
of section 5, ``Vending Machine Capacity,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 431.293). For combination vending
machines, the ``vendible capacity'' is the entire volume from which
product may be vended, whether or not that volume is actively
refrigerated.
4. Verification Tests.
These test methods are not required for the certification of
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
4.1 Verification of Fully Cooled Refrigerated Bottled or Canned
Beverage Vending Machines. To determine if a refrigerated bottled or
canned beverage vending machine model is fully cooled, install standard
test packages in the furthest from the next-to-vend positions. For a
beverage vending machine with horizontal product rows, or spirals, this
would require a standard test package at the back of the horizontal
product rows in the four corners of the machine (e.g., bottom right,
bottom left, top right, and top left). For a beverage vending machines
with standard products configured in a vertical stack, this would
require a standard test package at the top of each stack. Calculate the
average temperature of all the standard test packages in the furthest
from the next-to-vend position over the entire test period and subtract
this value from the integrated average temperature of standard test
packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions. If the difference
between these two values is less than or equal to 10 [deg]F, the tested
unit is fully cooled.
4.2 Refrigeration Low Power Mode Validation Test Method. To verify
the existence of a refrigeration low power mode initiate the
refrigeration low power mode after completion of the 6-hour low power
mode test period and record the average temperature of the standard
test packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions for the next 2
hours. Over the course of this 2-hour period, the instantaneous average
next-to-vend beverage temperatures, that is the spatial average of all
next-to-vend beverages, must increase above 40 [deg]F and remain above
40 [deg]F for at least 1 hour. At the conclusion of the 2-hour
refrigeration low power mode verification test period, the refrigerated
beverage vending machine must return to 36 1 [deg]F
automatically without direct physical intervention. Record the average
temperature of the standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage
positions until the average temperature returns to at least 37 [deg]F.3
[FR Doc. 2014-18801 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P