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



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

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

[[Page 1591]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Automatic 
Commercial Ice Makers

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

[[Page 1592]]

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

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

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

B. Background

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

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

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

[[Page 1593]]

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

II. Summary of the Final Rule

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

III. Discussion

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

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

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure

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

[[Page 1594]]

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

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

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

[[Page 1595]]

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

[[Page 1596]]

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

[[Page 1597]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 1598]]

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

[[Page 1599]]

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

[[Page 1600]]

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

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

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

[[Page 1601]]

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

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comment Summary and DOE Responses

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

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

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

[[Page 1602]]

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

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

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

[[Page 1603]]

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

[[Page 1604]]

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

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

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

[[Page 1605]]

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

[[Page 1606]]

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

[[Page 1607]]

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

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

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

[[Page 1608]]

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

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

[[Page 1609]]

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

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

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

[[Page 1610]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 1611]]

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

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

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

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

[[Page 1612]]

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

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

M. Congressional Notification

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

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

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


[[Page 1613]]


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

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

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

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

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


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


Sec.  431.132  Definitions concerning automatic commercial ice makers.

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

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


Sec.  431.133  Materials incorporated by reference.

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

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


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

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


[[Page 1614]]


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

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