[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46908-46938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18801]



[[Page 46907]]

Vol. 79

Monday,

No. 154

August 11, 2014

Part II





 Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Refrigerated Bottled or 
Canned Beverage Vending Machines; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 46908]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045]
RIN 1904-AD07


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Refrigerated 
Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to amend its test 
procedure for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines 
(BVM) in order to update the referenced method of test to ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2010, eliminate the requirement to test at the 90 [deg]F 
ambient test condition, create a provision for testing at the lowest 
application product temperature, and incorporate provisions to account 
for the impact of low power modes on measured daily energy consumption 
(DEC). This notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) also proposes several 
amendments and clarifications to the DOE test procedure to improve the 
repeatability and remove ambiguity from the current BVM test procedure. 
DOE will hold a public meeting to receive and discuss comments on this 
NOPR.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
NOPR before and after the public meeting, but no later than October 27, 
2014. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for details.
    DOE will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, September 16, 2014, from 
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast 
as a Webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room GH-019, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. For 
more information, refer to the Public Participation section near the 
end of this notice.
    Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number and/
or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document 
(Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/24. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this 
notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will 
contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including 
Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and 
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. See 
section V for information on how to submit comments through 
regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590, Email: [email protected].
    In the Office of General Counsel, contact Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-1777, 
Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Minor Clarifications and Amendments to the DOE Test Procedure
    1. Updating the Referenced Method of Test
    2. Eliminating Testing at the 90 [deg]F Ambient Test Condition
    3. Test Procedure for Combination Vending Machines
    4. Loading of BVM Models When Conducting the DOE Test Procedure
    5. Specifying the Characteristics of the Standard Product
    6. Clarifying the Next-to-Vend Beverage Temperature Test 
Condition
    7. Defining ``Fully Cooled''
    8. Placement of Thermocouples During Testing
    9. Establishing Testing Provisions at the Lowest Application 
Product Temperature
    10. Clarifications to Certification and Reporting Requirements
    11. Treatment of Certain Accessories During Testing
    a. Money-Processing Equipment
    b. Interior Lighting
    c. External Customer Display Signs, Lights, or Digital Screens
    d. Anti-Sweat and Other Electric Resistance Heaters
    e. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps
    f. Illuminated Temperature Displays
    g. Condenser Filters
    h. Security Covers
    i. Coated Coils
    j. General Purpose Outlets
    k. Crankcase Heaters and Electric Resistance Heaters for Cold 
Weather
    B. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions to Account for Low 
Power Modes
    1. Characteristics of Low Power Modes
    2. Comments Received by Interested Parties
    3. DOE's Proposed Low Power Mode Test Provisions
    a. Definitions Related to the Low Power Mode Test Procedure
    b. Potential Low Power Mode Test Methods Based on Physical 
Testing
    c. Potential Low Power Mode Test Methods Using a Combination of 
Physical Testing for Accessory Low Power Mode and Calculated Credits 
for Refrigeration Low Power Mode
    d. Refrigeration Low Power Mode Verification Test Protocol

[[Page 46909]]

    e. DOE's Proposed Low Power Mode Test Method
    f. Equipment with Multiple Energy Use States
IV. Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
V. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (``EPCA'' or ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, 
as codified) established the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles.'' \2\ As part of this program, EPCA 
directed DOE to prescribe energy conservation standards for 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines (BVMs), which 
are the subject of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v)) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical 
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
    \3\ Because Congress included BVMs in Part A of Title III of 
EPCA, the consumer product provisions of Part A (not the industrial 
equipment provisions of Part A-1) apply to BVMs. DOE placed the 
regulatory requirements specific to BVMs in Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), part 431, ``Energy Efficiency Program for 
Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment'' as a matter of 
administrative convenience based on their type and will refer to 
BVMs as ``equipment'' throughout this document because of their 
placement in 10 CFR part 431. Despite the placement of BVMs in 10 
CFR part 431, the relevant provisions of Title A of EPCA and 10 CFR 
part 430, which are applicable to all product types specified in 
Title A of EPCA, are applicable to BVMs. See 74 FR 44914, 44917 
(Aug. 31, 2009). DOE proposes to amend 10 CFR 431.291 to clarify 
this point by specifying that the regulatory provisions of 10 CFR 
430.33 and 430.34 and subparts D and E of 10 CFR part 430 are 
applicable to BVMs. DOE notes that, because the procedures in Parts 
430 and 431 for petitioning the Department for and obtaining a test 
procedure waiver are substantively the same (79 FR 26591, 26601(May 
9, 2014)) the regulations for applying for a test procedure waiver 
for BVMs are those found at 10 CFR 431.401 rather than those found 
at 430.27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to 
certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test 
procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated 
annual operating cost of each covered equipment type. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test 
procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment 
complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted 
under EPCA, and when making representations about the efficiency of the 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 
these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with 
any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered equipment, including beverage vending machines. EPCA provides 
in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or amended under 
this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which 
measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating 
cost of a covered unit of equipment during a representative average use 
cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test 
procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test 
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency or measured energy 
use of any covered unit of equipment as determined under the existing 
test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 
amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency or measured 
energy use of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy 
conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1), the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) 
shall review test procedures for all covered products at least once 
every 7 years and either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary 
determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully 
comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) or publish a 
determination in the Federal Register not to amend them. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(1)(A))
    Pursuant to this requirement, DOE has reviewed the BVM test 
procedure and has determined that the test procedure could be amended 
to improve testing accuracy of covered refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines. As such, DOE is proposing amendments to its 
test procedure and presents these amendments in this NOPR.

B. Background

    EPCA requires the test procedures for refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines to be based on American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating 
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 32.1-2004 (ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2004), ``Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines 
for Bottled, Canned or Other Sealed Beverages.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(15)) In December 2006, DOE published a final rule establishing 
a test procedure for beverage vending machines, among other products 
and equipment (the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule). 71 FR 71340, 
71355 (Dec. 8, 2006). In that final rule, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(15), DOE adopted ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 as the DOE test 
procedure, with a modification to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 to 
test equipment with dual nameplate voltages at the lower of the two 
voltages only. 71 FR 71355 (Dec. 8, 2006).
    ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 specifies a method for determining 
the capacity of vending machines, referred to as ``vendible capacity,'' 
which essentially consists of the maximum number of standard sealed 
beverages a vending machine can hold for sale. In the 2006 BVM test 
procedure final rule, however, DOE adopted the ``refrigerated volume'' 
measure in section 5.2, ``Refrigerated Volume Calculation,'' of ANSI/
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) HRF-1-2004 (ANSI/
AHAM HRF-1-2004) in addition to the ``vendible capacity'' measure, as 
referred to in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. 71 FR 71355 (Dec. 8, 
2006). DOE adopted ``refrigerated volume'' as

[[Page 46910]]

the primary measure of capacity for refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines because of the variety of dispensing 
mechanisms and storage arrangements among similar machines that may 
lead to potentially different refrigerated volumes for different 
machines with the same vendible capacity. In addition, EPCA has 
historically used upper limits on energy use as a function of volume 
for the purposes of establishing energy conservation standards for 
refrigeration equipment. Id.
    In the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, DOE determined that 
section 5.2 of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, which addresses the measurement of 
refrigerated volume in household freezers, is also applicable to 
beverage vending machines and is more appropriate than the language for 
measurement of volume in household refrigerators of section 4.2 of 
ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004. Specifically, section 5.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1-2004 includes provisions for specific compartments and features 
that are typically found in refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 
vending machines, similar to what is found in freezers. Therefore, DOE 
adopted ``refrigerated volume'' in lieu of ``vendible capacity'' as the 
dimensional metric for beverage vending machines in the 2006 BVM test 
procedure final rule. Id.
    Since the publication of the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, 
ASHRAE has published an update to the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 test 
procedure. The most recent version is ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, 
which includes changes aligning it with the nomenclature and 
methodology used in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule (71 FR 71355 
(Dec. 8, 2006)) and the 2009 BVM energy conservation standards final 
rule (74 FR 44914 (Aug. 31, 2009)). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 
removes the definitions of ``bottled'' and ``canned'' and includes the 
portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 that were incorporated by reference in 
the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, in a new Appendix C for 
measuring refrigerated volume. DOE believes that the aforementioned 
changes are largely editorial and do not affect the method of test or 
measured energy consumption values of any covered equipment.
    AHAM has also updated its HRF-1 test standard since the publication 
of the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule. The most recent version, 
AHAM HRF-1-2008, includes changes to the refrigerated volume 
measurement portion of the standard, reorganizes some sections for 
simplicity and usability, and combines the sections for the measurement 
of refrigerated volume of refrigerators and the measurement of the 
refrigerated volume of freezers.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure for refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machines to update and clarify the 
test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposes to (1) Update the referenced 
method of test to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010; (2) eliminate the 
requirement to test at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition; (3) 
clarify the test procedure for combination vending machines; (4) 
clarify the requirements for loading of BVM models under the DOE test 
procedure; (5) specify the characteristics of a standard test package; 
(6) clarify the average next-to-vend beverage temperature test 
condition; (7) provide a definition of ``fully cooled;'' (8) specify 
placement of thermocouples during the DOE test procedure; (9) establish 
provisions for testing at the lowest application product temperature; 
(10) clarify the certification and reporting requirements for covered 
beverage vending machines; and (11) clarify the treatment of certain 
accessories during the DOE test procedure. These proposed 
clarifications and amendments would be effective 30 days after the 
publication of a final rule amending the BVM test procedure in the 
Federal Register. The clarified BVM test procedure will be placed in a 
new appendix, Appendix A to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431. Manufacturers 
will be required to use Appendix A to demonstrate compliance with 
existing energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines.
    In addition, this test procedure NOPR proposes amendments that are 
intended to be used with the promulgation of any amended energy 
conservation standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines and 
will be included as a new Appendix B to subpart Q of 10 CFR 431. These 
amendments include incorporating provisions to account for the impact 
of low power modes.
    Manufacturers would be required to use any amended test procedure 
adopted in Appendix B to be in compliance with DOE's energy 
conservation standards, as well as for labeling or other 
representations as to the energy use of any covered equipment, 
beginning on the compliance date of any final rule establishing amended 
energy conservation standards for refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines that are set based on the amended test 
procedure. The ongoing BVM energy conservation standards rulemaking 
will use any amendments established as part of this test procedure 
rulemaking in its energy conservation standards analyses and, 
therefore, use of the test procedures established in Appendix B would 
be required on the compliance date of the amended energy conservation 
standards promulgated as a result of that rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0022). Prior to the compliance date of any such amended 
standards, manufacturers must continue to use the test procedure found 
in Appendix A to show compliance with existing DOE energy conservation 
standards and for representations concerning the energy use of covered 
equipment. However, manufacturers may elect to use the amended BVM test 
procedure in Appendix B established as a result of this rulemaking 
prior to its compliance date to demonstrate compliance with any future, 
amended standards. Manufacturers who choose to use the amended test 
procedure early must ensure that their equipment satisfies any 
applicable amended energy conservation standards. In other words, 
manufacturers may elect to use the amended test procedure only if they 
also elect to comply with the amended energy conservation standards 
prior to the established compliance date.
    Finally, DOE is proposing amendments to 10 CFR 429.52(b) with 
regards to reporting requirements, including a clarifying amendment 
that the standard for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 
machines is based on DEC. DOE is also proposing similar clarifying 
amendments to the energy conservation standards found in 10 CFR 
431.296.

III. Discussion

    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing several minor amendments to clarify 
DOE's test procedure for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 
vending machines. DOE is also proposing several amendments related to 
the impact of low power modes. To make clear the applicability of these 
amendments, DOE is proposing to reorganize the existing DOE test 
procedure into two new appendices, Appendix A and Appendix B, to 10 CFR 
431.294.
    Appendix A would contain the provisions established in the 2006 BVM 
test procedure final rule and any clarifying amendments proposed in 
this NOPR. Appendix A would be used beginning 30 days after publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register until the compliance date of 
any amended standards.

[[Page 46911]]

    The proposed amendments found in Appendix A are discussed in 
Section III.A and include provisions in the following areas:
    (1) Updating the referenced method of test to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1-2010;
    (2) eliminating testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition;
    (3) clarifying the test procedure for combination vending machines;
    (4) clarifying the requirements for loading BVM models under the 
DOE test procedure;
    (5) clarifying the specifications of the test package;
    (6) clarifying the next-to-vend beverage temperature test 
condition;
    (7) providing a definition for ``fully cooled;''
    (8) specifying placement of thermocouples during the DOE test 
procedure;
    (9) establishing testing provisions at the lowest application 
product temperature;
    (10) clarifying certification and reporting requirements; and
    (11) clarifying the treatment of certain accessories when 
conducting the DOE test procedure.
    Appendix B would include all of the amendments proposed in Appendix 
A and, in addition, provisions for testing low power modes. The test 
procedures found in Appendix B would be used in conjunction with any 
amended standards set as a result of the ongoing BVM energy 
conservation standard rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022). 
Section III.B summarizes the proposed revisions to the test procedure 
that would be included in the amended test procedure in Appendix B.
    As part of the current rulemaking on the energy conservation 
standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines, DOE held a public 
meeting on June 20, 2013, to present its Framework document 
(www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022-0001) and 
to receive comments from interested parties.
    In formulating today's NOPR, DOE considered the comments received 
in response to the Framework document and incorporated recommendations, 
where appropriate, that applied to the test procedure. Where 
applicable, comments received in response to the BVM Framework document 
that addressed DOE's proposed test procedure amendments are presented 
in sections III.A and III.B, along with DOE's response and 
justification.
    In addition, DOE provides amendments to 10 CFR part 429, 
``Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement for Consumer Products and 
Commercial and Industrial Equipment,'' and part 431, subpart Q, 
``Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines.''

A. Minor Clarifications and Amendments to the DOE Test Procedure

    DOE held a public meeting on June 20, 2013, to present its 
Framework document and to receive comments from interested parties. In 
reviewing these comments and considering revisions to DOE's test 
procedure for beverage vending machines, DOE determined that there are 
several provisions of the DOE test procedure that may require 
clarification. In order to clarify the Department's test procedures, 
DOE proposes to amend subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431 by moving most of 
the existing test procedures for refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines from 10 CFR 431.294 to a new Appendix A to 
subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431. In Appendix A, DOE also proposes to 
incorporate nine amendments to clarify and update the current DOE test 
procedure for beverage vending machines. These clarifications and 
amendments therefore would be effective 30 days after publication of a 
final rule in the Federal Register. This section of the NOPR discusses 
the specific test procedure provisions that require clarification, 
DOE's proposed amendments, and the comments received on these topics.
1. Updating the Referenced Method of Test
    The current DOE test procedure for refrigerated beverage vending 
machines incorporates by reference two industry test procedures, ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, which established a 
method of testing for beverage vending machines and a method for 
determining refrigerated volume, respectively. Each of these industry 
test procedures has been updated since the publication of the DOE test 
procedure in 2006. The most current versions are ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1-2010 and AHAM HRF-1-2008.
    ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 was amended from the 2004 version to 
include new definitions and nomenclature established by DOE in the 2009 
BVM final rule. These changes include removing references to specific 
sealed-bottle package designs such as ``bottled'' or ``canned,'' 
revising the scope, and incorporating a new Appendix C, ``Measurement 
of Volume,'' which consists of certain portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 
for measuring the refrigerated volume. Specifically, ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2004 incorporated the portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 
currently referenced in the DOE test procedure, section 5.2 (excluding 
subsections 5.2.2.2 through 5.2.2.4), which describes the method for 
determining refrigerated volume for residential freezers, as well as 
section 5.1, which describes the purpose of the section. These new 
amendments make the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 test procedure 
identical to the DOE test procedure established in the 2006 BVM test 
procedure final rule. As the amendments to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2010 are primarily editorial, they do not affect the tested DEC of 
covered equipment. DOE is proposing to update the industry test method 
incorporated by reference to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 for the 
measurement of DEC and vendible capacity.
    In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE requested comment regarding 
adoption of an updated test procedure for refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines. During the comment period, DOE 
received no opposing comments to this proposal. Royal Vendors, Inc. 
(Royal) and the National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) 
commented in support of updating the DOE test procedure to reference 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 3; \4\ NAMA, No. 8 
at p. 2) Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. (AMS) commented that it 
had no objection to the use of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 
standard. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) Royal and NAMA commented that the test 
procedure should use ANSI-approved technical standards because 
deviations from portions of standards create confusion regarding 
clarity of test results, create an unfair advantage for underperforming 
models and manufacturers, and create potential for confusion among 
consumers attempting to understand and compare the tested performance 
of different BVM models. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 4; and NAMA, No. 8 at p. 
3) Royal also commented that any changes made to the test procedure 
should be within the confines of the ASHRAE standard because that 
standard is established

[[Page 46912]]

from a consensus process and reliance on it will prevent confusion from 
varying test standards. (Royal No. 7 at p. 31)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information 
that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures 
for beverage vending machines (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022, 
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). This particular 
notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Royal Vendors, Inc.; 
(2) appearing in document number 11 of the docket; and (3) appearing 
on page 3 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA requires the test procedures for refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines to be based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1-2004. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(15)) In addition, EPCA requires DOE to 
develop test procedures that represent an average energy use cycle or 
period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) When an industry test procedure 
does not adequately represent the energy use of a covered unit of 
equipment under a representative cycle of use, DOE has the authority to 
amend the test procedure with respect to that covered equipment type if 
DOE determines that the amended test procedure would more accurately or 
fully reflect the representative use of that product, without being 
unduly burdensome. (42 U.S.C 6293(b)(1)) DOE believes that certain 
amendments are necessary to adequately characterize the energy use of 
covered BVM models, as discussed in section III.B.
    Since DOE published the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, AHAM 
has released a new version of the AHAM HRF-1 test method, which 
reorganizes and simplifies the test method as presented in ANSI/AHAM 
HRF-1-2004. The revised AHAM HRF-1 test method, ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2008, 
combines sections 4, 5, and 6, which relate to measuring the 
refrigerated volume of refrigerators and freezers, into one section 
describing methods for determining the refrigerated volume of 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, wine chillers, and freezers. This 
unified and simplified method includes several changes regarding the 
inclusion or exclusion of certain special features from the 
determination of refrigerated volume such that DOE believes AHAM HRF-1-
2008 has the potential to yield refrigerated volume values that differ 
slightly from those taken using the method in the current DOE test 
procedure. DOE considered proposing to adopt AHAM HRF-1-2008 as the 
method for computing refrigerated volume in the amended test procedure. 
DOE does not believe, however, that the updated AHAM HRF-1-2008 test 
procedure has sufficient additional merit compared to the volume 
calculation method included in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 to 
justify the additional burden on manufacturers. Instead, DOE proposes 
to adopt Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 as the volume 
measurement methodology in its amended test procedure. Adopting 
Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 will allow manufacturers 
to reference a single document containing all information needed to 
conduct the DOE test procedure. As such, DOE proposes to remove ANSI/
AHAM HRF-1-2004 from the documents incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 
431.293.
    In response to the 2013 BVM Framework document, AMS commented that 
the AHAM volume calculation is difficult to evaluate for its type of 
equipment. (AMS, No. 7 at p. 79) DOE understands AMS's comment, but 
notes that the determination of volume must be consistent for all 
covered equipment to allow for comparability and consistent application 
of the standards across equipment. DOE notes that if the method for 
determining refrigerated volume is inappropriate or impossible for any 
BVM basic models, the manufacturer of that equipment should request a 
waiver in accordance with the provisions in subpart V to 10 CFR part 
431. Any petitioner for a waiver of a test procedure should note why 
the volume calculation in the DOE test procedure cannot be applied and 
include any alternate test procedure known to the petitioner. See 
section 431.401 of 10 CFR part 431 for the requirements of submitting 
petitions for waiver of test procedures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ DOE recently issued a final rule amending its regulations 
governing petitions for waiver and interim waiver from DOE test 
procedures for consumer products and commercial and industrial 
equipment. 79 FR 26591 (May 9, 2014). This final rule carries an 
effective date of June 9, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on the proposal to update its test procedure 
to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the referenced 
method of test for the measurement of refrigerated volume in its test 
procedure from section 5 of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 to Appendix C of ANSI/
ASHRAE 3.1-2010.
    DOE requests comment on whether the methodology in Appendix C of 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 for the measurement of refrigerated 
volume is more appropriate for beverage vending machines than the 
methodology outlined in section 4 of AHAM HRF-1-2008.
2. Eliminating Testing at the 90 [deg]F Ambient Test Condition
    Both ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, the test method incorporated 
by reference in the current DOE test procedure, and ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2010, the test method DOE proposes to incorporate by 
reference in the amended test procedure as discussed in section 
III.A.1, specify two tests: one at an ambient condition of 75 [deg]F 
 2 [deg]F temperature and 45 percent  5 percent 
relative humidity (``the 75 [deg]F ambient test condition''), and the 
other at an ambient condition of 90 [deg]F  2 [deg]F 
temperature and 65 percent  5 percent relative humidity 
(``the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition''). By incorporating by 
reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, DOE's current test procedure 
for refrigerated beverage vending machines requires testing at both the 
75 [deg]F ambient test condition and 90 [deg]F ambient test condition. 
In the energy conservation standards rulemaking that culminated in the 
2009 BVM final rule, however, DOE determined to use only the 75 [deg]F 
ambient test condition for the purposes of demonstrating compliance 
with applicable energy conservation standards. The data taken at the 90 
[deg]F ambient test condition are not used for DOE regulatory purposes. 
74 FR 44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009).
    In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE requested comment on 
eliminating the requirement to test units at the 90 [deg]F ambient test 
condition. NAMA and Royal agreed with the elimination of the test 
method using the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 
2; Royal, No. 11 at p. 3) AMS and the Wittern Group, Inc. (Wittern) 
agreed with the elimination of the requirement to test at 90 [deg]F 
ambient test condition. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 2; Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) 
Wittern added that it did not see any benefit in rating machines at two 
temperatures and that the change would benefit the consumer by making 
it easier to compare machines. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2)
    The California Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) opposed the 
complete elimination of the methodology used to measure performance at 
the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition, stating that the 90 [deg]F 
ambient test condition better evaluates the performance of equipment 
installed outdoors and requested that DOE maintain it for Class B 
equipment.\6\ (CA

[[Page 46913]]

IOUs, No. 19 at pp. 4 and 5) The CA IOUs further requested that the 
Class B equipment MDEC at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition be 
included in DOE's Compliance Certification Database because such 
information would be useful to consumers and purchasers of Class B 
units to be installed in outdoor settings. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5) 
The Joint Comment \7\ encouraged DOE to maintain the requirement to 
test Class B units at 90 [deg]F because the 75 [deg]F ambient test may 
not adequately reflect the performance of units installed outdoors and 
noted that performance at high ambient temperatures may become a more 
significant issue with the increased adoption of alternative 
refrigerants. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 1) The Joint Comment 
encouraged DOE to maintain the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition for 
Class B machines and require the associated MDEC to be reported and 
included in the Compliance Certification Database for the use of 
customers purchasing units to be installed outdoors and energy 
efficiency program managers. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOE defines a Class B refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machine to mean any refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machine not considered to be Class A, and is not a 
combination vending machine. DOE defines a Class A refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine as any refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is fully cooled and 
is not a combination vending machine. (See 10 CFR 431.292) Class B 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines are, 
therefore, not fully-cooled machines and are typically referred to 
in the industry as ``zone-cooled.'' DOE found in its preliminary 
analysis for the concurrent energy conservation standards rulemaking 
that class B machines are often installed outside (DOE estimates 
that about 25% are installed outside), whereas Class A machines are 
rarely, if ever, installed outside.
    \7\ Joint Comment refers to the written comment submitted by the 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the Alliance to Save Energy, 
the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural 
Resources Defense Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and the Northwest Power and 
Conservation Council in Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs also commented that it assumes manufacturers are 
continuing to test at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition, which 
remains in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1, to satisfy the requirements of 
the industry-developed test procedure and to understand how their 
equipment performs at these conditions. Therefore, according to the CA 
IOUs, there would be little additional test burden created by 
continuing to require testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient condition in the 
DOE test procedure because manufacturers will already be testing at 90 
[deg]F for industry purposes. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5) Finally, the CA 
IOUs submitted to DOE two reports prepared by testing laboratories at 
Southern California Edison to further DOE's understanding of the effect 
of ambient temperature on BVM energy use, and further commented that 
energy use was increased by almost 25 percent for an opaque door 
machine and almost 50 percent for a transparent door unit tested at a 
higher ambient temperature. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5)
    DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure to eliminate the 
requirement to perform a test at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition 
as described in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1-2010. DOE understands that the 90 [deg]F test is used primarily to 
represent and evaluate the performance of some units that may be 
installed outdoors; however, as mentioned above, the performance of a 
beverage vending machine at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition is not 
currently used for DOE regulatory purposes and is not required to be 
reported to demonstrate compliance of covered equipment. Therefore, DOE 
does not see a need to maintain the 90 [deg]F test condition as part of 
the DOE test procedure.
    In response to the Joint Comment's concern regarding increasing use 
of alternative refrigerants, DOE acknowledges that equipment with 
carbon dioxide refrigerant, which have recently become available in the 
U.S. market, may in general have significantly different energy 
performance characteristics at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition 
when compared to machines with hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants 
such as HFC-134a. However, as conditions above 75 [deg]F and conditions 
below 75 [deg]F are equally representative of conditions encountered by 
equipment installed in the United States, DOE maintains that the 75 
[deg]F ambient test condition is a suitable rating condition and 
represents the average use cycle of the equipment.
    DOE believes removing the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition test 
requirement will reduce manufacturer burden associated with its test 
procedure by eliminating testing that does not significantly increase 
the accuracy or representativeness of the DOE test procedure and is 
unnecessary for demonstrating compliance with DOE's energy conservation 
standards.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to eliminate the requirement 
to conduct testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition.
3. Test Procedure for Combination Vending Machines
    In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE requested comment regarding 
the use of the current DOE test procedure to evaluate the energy use of 
combination vending machines. In response to the Framework document, 
DOE received several comments regarding the development of a test 
procedure for combination vending machines. AMS commented that it 
manufactures combination machines in a variety of different 
configurations and that testing these configured as Class A machines, 
if the machine design allows, would result in the highest energy 
consumption possible for the model. AMS added that, for combination 
vending machines tested configured as Class A machines, the current DOE 
test procedure and MDEC for Class A machines can be applied without any 
loss of program integrity. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 4) NAMA commented that 
machines currently classified under the regulations as refrigerated can 
and bottle vending machines are inherently different than combination 
machines, which, unlike traditional can and bottle vending machines, 
are in most cases designed to dispense perishable products and food 
items in countless machine configurations. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 5) The CA 
IOUs commented that DOE should consider updates to the test procedure 
to accurately measure the efficiency of combination machines. (CA IOUs, 
No. 19 at p. 3) Wittern commented that combination vending machines can 
be part of Class A if they are tested in the worst case condition, 
fully cooling the refrigerated compartment, since the machine is not 
going to consume more energy when it is only partially cooling the 
compartment. (Wittern, No. 16. at p. 2)
    Based on the comments received, DOE has determined that there may 
be confusion about what constitutes a combination vending machine for 
the purposes of DOE's energy conservation standards. To clarify, DOE 
notes that a combination vending machine is defined as a refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine that also has non-
refrigerated volumes for the purpose of vending other, non-``sealed 
beverage'' merchandise. 10 CFR 431.292 Based on this definition, any 
machine (a) that upon payment dispenses beverages in sealed containers 
and (b) in which the entire internal storage volume is refrigerated, is 
not a combination vending machine. For example, a piece of equipment 
that is designed to vend sealed beverages and other products with an 
entirely refrigerated internal storage volume, would be a covered Class 
A refrigerated beverage vending machine and should be tested 
accordingly. Such equipment would be a covered Class A beverage vending 
machine even if the portions of the machine that vend sealed beverages 
and other products are physically separated, provided they are both 
refrigerated.
    Regarding the test procedure for combination vending machines, DOE 
believes that its current test procedure is appropriate for the 
evaluation of the refrigerated volume, vendible capacity, and energy 
use of combination vending machines. Similarly, DOE believes the 
amendments to the BVM test procedure

[[Page 46914]]

proposed in this NOPR are equally applicable to combination vending 
machines. DOE notes, however, that the application of the BVM test 
procedure may require clarification as to how it is applied to 
combination vending machines. For example, in combination vending 
machines, only the refrigerated compartment would be evaluated in the 
refrigerated volume calculation, while the vendible capacity would be 
that of both refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments. The non-
refrigerated compartment would not be accounted for in the refrigerated 
volume determination. Similarly, standard test packages would be placed 
in the next-to-vend position only in the refrigerated portion of the 
refrigerated beverage vending machine and only the refrigerated portion 
of the combination vending machine would be required to be fully loaded 
to capacity. However, any lighting or other energy-consuming features 
in the non-refrigerated compartment would be fully energized during the 
test procedure and operated in the same manner as any lighting or 
features in the refrigerated compartment (see section III.A.11.b and 
III.B.1). Therefore, the total energy use of the machine during the 24-
hour test would comprise the DEC, as measured in accordance with ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 or ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. DOE 
proposes to add these clarifications to the DOE test procedure at 10 
CFR 431.294 for combination vending machines.
    DOE requests comment on the applicability of the existing test 
procedure, as clarified, to combination vending machines.
4. Loading of BVM Models When Conducting the DOE Test Procedure
    In reviewing the current test procedure for refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines and, in particular, in reviewing the 
comments submitted regarding the applicability of the BVM test 
procedure to combination vending machines, DOE determined that the 
loading requirements for Class A and Class B machines are not clearly 
and unambiguously specified in the current DOE test procedure. 
Therefore, DOE proposes to add language to the BVM test procedure to 
clarify the loading requirements for covered Class A and Class B 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines that are 
offered in a variety of configurations and may be capable of vending 
other refrigerated merchandise. Specifically, DOE proposes to amend the 
regulatory text to clarify that any Class A or Class B beverage vending 
machine that is available with a variety of product storage 
configurations should be configured, for purposes of testing, to hold 
the maximum number of sealed beverages that it is capable of 
accommodating per manufacturer specifications. For example, if some 
areas of the machine can be configured either to vend sealed beverages 
or to vend other refrigerated merchandise, the equipment should be 
configured and loaded with the maximum number of sealed beverages for 
testing. Tests conducted with other configurations may produce 
different results because of the decrease in thermal mass in the 
refrigerated space. The performance at the maximum beverage 
configuration may be used to represent the performance of other 
configurations of a basic model of covered equipment which differ in 
placement and type of shelving only. However, if a manufacturer wishes 
to make differing representations regarding the energy consumption of a 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine in various 
shelving configurations, the manufacturer may elect to test and certify 
each unique shelving configuration as a separate basic model.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For purposes of BVMs, basic model means all units of a 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine(or class 
thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary 
energy source, and which have essentially identical electrical, 
physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy 
consumption or energy efficiency. See 10 CFR 431.292. If differing 
shelving configurations affect the energy consumption, these 
differing configurations should be considered different basic 
models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE proposes to add language to the DOE test procedure in Appendix 
A and Appendix B to clarify the loading requirements for covered BVM 
models.
5. Specifying the Characteristics of the Standard Product
    When testing a BVM model in accordance with the DOE test procedure, 
the equipment is to be loaded with the maximum quantity of standard 
product and with standard test packages in each next-to-be-vended 
position for each selection, as required by section 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2 
of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and 2010. Section 5 of ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2004 and 2010 further requires that the standard product 
shall be 12-ounce cans for machines that are capable of dispensing 12-
ounce cans. For all other machines, the standard product shall be the 
product specified by the manufacturer as the standard product.
    The DOE test procedure does not provide any further specificity 
regarding the characteristics of the standard product when conducting 
the DOE test procedure, or the manufacture of standard test packages. 
DOE understands that there may be variability among manufacturers and 
testing laboratories with regard to the configuration of standard 
product and standard test packages. DOE believes that such variability 
may result in minor inconsistencies in test results. As such, DOE 
proposes to clarify the characteristics of the standard product and 
standard test package to ensure test results are as consistent and 
repeatable as possible.
    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to add text to the BVM test procedure in 
Appendix A and Appendix B, that the standard product shall be standard 
12-ounce aluminum beverage cans filled with a liquid with a density of 
1.0 grams per milliliter (g/mL)  0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines that are not 
capable of holding 12-ounce cans, but are capable of vending 20-ounce 
bottles, the standard product shall be 20-ounce plastic bottles filled 
with a liquid with a density of 1.0 g/mL  0.1 g/mL at 36 
[deg]F. For refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines 
that are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles, the 
product specified by the manufacturer as the standard product shall 
continue to be used.
    DOE selected a density range of 1.0 g/mL  0.1 g/mL as 
it is inclusive of most test fluids used today. For example, this 
density range includes water, diet and regular soda, fruit juices, and 
propylene glycol/water mixtures up to 50/50 percent by volume. In 
addition, Fischer-Nickel conducted research in 2004 comparing the 
temperature measurements of standard test packages constructed in the 
manner specified by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1, as compared to the test 
packages described in ASHRAE Standard 117-2002, which are 1-pint 
plastic test packages filled with a 50/50 mixture of water and 
propylene glycol, and found little variation in measured temperatures 
with the different test package materials and fluids.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Cowen, D. and Zabrowski, D. 2004. ``Application and 
Evaluation of ASHRAE 117-2002 and ASHRAE 32.1-1997.'' FSTC Report 
# 5011.04.01. Fischer-Nickel, Inc. Available at: http://www.fishnick.com/publications/appliancereports/refrigeration/Application_of_ASHRAE_117_and_32.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 3 of ASHRAE 32.1-2004 and 2010 defines the standard test 
package as a beverage container of the size and shape for which the 
vending machine is designed, altered to include a temperature-measuring 
instrument at its

[[Page 46915]]

center of mass. DOE finds the requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1-2004 and 2010 to be fairly clear and concise, when paired with the 
clarification above regarding the standard product. And, as such, DOE 
is not proposing additional clarifications beyond the proposed 
clarification that the standard product shall be 12-ounce cans or 20-
ounce bottles, for BVM models that are capable of holding cans or 
bottles, respectively, filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 g/mL 
 0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F.
    DOE requests comment on the need to maintain the flexibility of 
specifying the standard product as that specified by the manufacturer 
for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines that are 
not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles. DOE 
specifically requests examples of BVM models that might require this 
flexibility and what type of standard products they are tested with 
currently.
    DOE requests comment on the sufficiency of the existing 
requirements regarding standard test packages. If the existing language 
is not sufficiently clear, DOE requests comments and recommendations 
regarding what additional clarifications might be necessary to ensure 
consistency and repeatability of test results.
6. Clarifying the Next-to-Vend Beverage Temperature Test Condition
    ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, the test method incorporated by 
reference in the current DOE test procedure, states, ``the beverage 
temperature shall be measured in standard test packages in each next-
to-be-vended position for each selection.'' ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2004 specifies an average next-to-vend temperature of 36 [deg]F  1 [deg]F ``throughout test.'' The beverage temperature 
requirements of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 test method, which 
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference into its test procedure as 
part of this NOPR, are identical to those of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2004.
    DOE has become aware of a need to clarify whether the next-to-vend 
temperature specification of 36 [deg]F  1 [deg]F 
``throughout test'' refers to a condition in which the average next-to-
vend temperature is maintained at 36 [deg]F  1 [deg]F 
constantly for the duration of the test, or one in which the 
temperature of next-to-vend beverages is averaged across all selections 
and over the entire length of the test, resulting in a single value of 
36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F).
    In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE requested comments on its 
consideration of clarifying the intent of the terminology ``throughout 
test'' with regard to maintaining the average next-to-vend temperature 
at 36 [deg]F  1 [deg]F in the DOE test procedure. 
Specifically, in the Framework document, DOE discussed clarifying the 
next-to-vend temperature condition as one where the average of all 
beverages in the next-to-vend position is maintained at 36 [deg]F 
 1 [deg]F at all times throughout the test. 78 FR 33262 
(June 4, 2013). In response, DOE received a variety of comments. Royal 
and NAMA did not support this clarification, stating that DOE should 
average the temperature data across all next-to-vend selections and 
over the entire test period because there is no evidence that 
variations in temperatures will impact energy use as long as the 
temperature is averaged for the test period. Royal and NAMA further 
stated that vending machines have varying defrost schemes, and the 
individual next-to-vend selections or their average temperature may 
migrate outside the 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F) range during 
defrost or other changes in refrigeration state. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 
3; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 2) Royal also commented that while the current 
 1 [deg]F tolerance is adequate, a one-sided tolerance 
(allowing temperatures to go below 35 [deg]F but not above 37 [deg]F) 
would provide more design freedom. (Royal, No. 7 at p. 53)
    Additionally, Wittern commented that it contacted ASHRAE, which 
provided interpretations from two former ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 
committee members that the temperature value to be used is the average 
of all test packages and not a tolerance applied to a single test 
package. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 1) Wittern further commented that the 
current design is that the next-to-vend beverages in stack machines are 
the first hit with the cold air and that maintaining the average 
product temperature ( 1 [deg]F) for each product in a stack 
machine would require major redesign to have all beverages hit equally 
with the supply air. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 1) AMS stated that holding 
60 or 70 cans within  1 [deg]F is nearly impossible and 
would mean a dramatic increase in price. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) AMS 
stated that if such a specification is deemed necessary,  
10 [deg]F would be more appropriate. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) AMS also 
noted that because the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 test method specifies 
an accuracy of  1 [deg]F for temperature measurement 
equipment, temperature measurements can probably only be expected to 
record a  5 [deg]F tolerance range with reasonable 
certainty. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1)
    DOE acknowledges commenters' concerns that maintaining each 
individual beverage within a  1 [deg]F tolerance is 
unnecessarily rigorous and is not the intent of the DOE test procedure. 
DOE agrees with commenters that the average next-to-vend temperature 
should be both a spatial and temporal average. To remove any ambiguity 
from this requirement, DOE is proposing to clarify its test procedure 
by explicitly stating that the temperature of next-to-vend beverages 
shall be averaged across all next-to-vend beverages and over the entire 
time of the test, resulting in a single value of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F). Specifically, DOE proposes to incorporate a 
definition of integrated average temperature to read as follows 
integrated average temperature means the average of all standard test 
package measurements in the next-to-vend beverage positions taken 
during the test, expressed in degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F).
    This clarification aligns with the general methodology for 
determining the temperature of internal refrigerated volumes for 
commercial refrigeration equipment and, as such, should be understood 
by the BVM industry to be a time-averaged value.
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of ``integrated 
average temperature'' for beverage vending machines.
    DOE requests comment on whether the proposed definition for 
``integrated average temperature'' aligns with standard practice in 
industry, and whether any manufacturers have instead been maintaining 
the 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F) next-to-vend temperature 
constantly throughout the test used for DOE certification.
7. Defining ``Fully Cooled''
    The 2009 BVM final rule established DOE energy conservation 
standards for beverage vending machines in two equipment classes: Class 
A and Class B refrigerated beverage vending machines. 74 FR 44914, 
44968 (Aug. 31, 2009). The distinguishing criterion between these two 
equipment classes is whether or not equipment is fully cooled. 10 CFR 
431.292.
    DOE regulations, however, have never included a definition for the 
term ``fully cooled.'' In the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE included 
a suggested definition for consideration and comment. The definition 
under consideration for fully cooled beverage in the 2013 BVM Framework 
document means a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 
machine within which each item in the beverage vending machine is 
brought to and stored at temperatures that fall within  2 
[deg]F of the average beverage temperature, which is the average of the

[[Page 46916]]

temperatures of all the items in the next-to-vend position for each 
selection.
    DOE received comments regarding the definition of ``fully cooled'' 
in response to the 2013 BVM Framework document. AMS commented that the 
strict temperature control ( 2 [deg]F) proposed in the 
framework definition is not practical, and probably impossible to 
achieve, and that temperatures vary widely, possibly as much as  10 [deg]F, from front to rear and top to bottom in today's 
machines. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 6) AMS agreed with the rationale of the 
proposal, but stated that data taken from products not in the next-to-
vend positions should only be used to determine whether such products 
are being cooled, without a strict temperature restriction. (AMS, No. 
17 at p. 6) AMS suggested that if such products are at least 20 [deg]F 
below the ambient temperature, the machine should be considered fully 
cooled. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 2) AMS suggested that plus or minus six 
degrees might be a more appropriate range. (AMS, No. 7 at p. 51) AMS 
went on to say that it understood the current definition of ``fully 
cooled'' as meaning that the machine's inherent design is based on an 
attempt to equally cool all products within the machine and thought 
that this is generally the interpretation used by the rest of the 
industry as well. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 6)
    Wittern commented that its opaque-front beverage machines are zone-
cooled for the most part, and that it believes the current equipment 
classes could be simplified to glass fronts with trays for Class A and 
closed fronts with stacks for Class B. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2)
    Royal proposed to define a fully cooled vending machine as one in 
which the average temperature of all items in the next-to-vend position 
is within  1 [deg]F during the 24-hour test period as 
defined in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 7) 
Royal also commented that DOE should stay within established and 
approved standards for definition purposes, rather than trying to 
define new standards and classifications. (Royal, No. 5 at p. 50) NAMA 
stated that they agreed with the current definition of ``fully cooled 
vending machine'' as they believe is specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1-2010. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 8) AMS agreed that a definition of fully 
cooled based on average next-to-vend temperatures across the face of 
the machine would be better than a temperature band for each beverage. 
(AMS, No. 17 at p. 57)
    The CA IOUs stated DOE should consider including a definition for 
zone-cooled if it is used in the definition of Class B equipment. (CA 
IOUs, No. 19 at p. 2) The CA IOUs requested that DOE work to establish 
a more descriptive definition of Class B equipment that describes them 
as what they are, which the CA IOUs understand to be zone-cooled, 
rather than by what they are not, to prevent confusion for marketplace 
actors who may not be familiar with the equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at 
p. 2)
    In light of the comments received, DOE is proposing the following 
definition of ``fully cooled'' which means a condition in which the 
refrigeration system of a beverage vending machine cools product 
throughout the entire refrigerated volume of a machine instead of being 
directed at a fraction (or zone) of the refrigerated volume as measured 
by the average temperature of the standard test packages in the 
furthest from the next-to-vend positions is no more than 10 [deg]F 
above the integrated average temperature of the standard test packages.
    This definition is predicated upon the different methods of cooling 
used in Class A and Class B machines and the customer utility provided 
by fully cooling the refrigerated space. Maintaining all refrigerated 
beverages within 10 [deg]F of the next-to-vend beverage temperature 
typically allows customers to select from more beverages and ensures 
that the customer will receive a properly cooled product, regardless of 
the product's vertical location in the machine. In response to NAMA's 
proposal to apply the current definition of ``fully cooled vending 
machine'' as found in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, DOE has reviewed 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 and did not find such a definition.
    As discussed earlier, DOE considered an alternative definition for 
fully cooled beverage vending machine. That definition would 
distinguish between those beverage vending machines that bring a 
product closer to the temperature at which it will be dispensed as it 
is moved closer to the next-to-vend position in the machine (i.e., 
zone-cooled beverage vending machines which hold the product in a 
vertical stack), and those units that are not designed to store 
products at temperatures other than the temperature at which the 
product will be dispensed. However, as suggested by interested parties 
in response to the 2013 BVM Framework Document, enforcing such a 
definition would require temperature measurements at each beverage 
location, which would be extremely burdensome to implement. In 
addition, requiring all beverages to be maintained at the next-to-vend 
temperature is an unrealistic requirement given the current designs of 
Class A machines. Instead, DOE is proposing temperature measurements at 
only the next-to-vend and furthest from next-to-vend temperature 
positions. DOE believes this is a reasonable number of additional 
temperature measurements such that the test procedure will not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct, while still providing a method to verify 
the location cooling method employed by the given machine. In addition, 
DOE selected a temperature range of 10 [deg]F, as suggested by AMS, as 
a reasonable temperature bound to differentiate fully cooled beverage 
vending machines. DOE verified this proposed temperature range based on 
limited testing of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 
machines currently available on the market to determine the typical 
temperature variability observed between the next-to-vend and furthest 
from next-to-vend beverages in Class A and Class B equipment, 
respectively. As such, DOE is proposing a more quantitative definition 
of fully cooled to unambiguously differentiate Class A and Class B 
equipment.
    DOE believes that the proposed definition of ``fully cooled'' 
accurately reflects the differences in cooling method and design 
between fully cooled and non-fully cooled beverage vending machines, 
and, further, aligns with DOE's interpretation of fully cooled machines 
to date. Therefore, DOE does not anticipate that this proposal will 
change the equipment class or energy standard level for any equipment 
that is currently covered under existing standards.
    Along with DOE's proposed definition for fully cooled, DOE also 
proposes to adopt a new test method that can be used to quantitatively 
differentiate between Class A and Class B equipment. As noted by 
Wittern, if temperature measurements are going to be used to determine 
which machines are fully cooled, the measurements must come from test 
packages in positions other than next-to-vend, because test packages in 
the next-to-vend position will be at the temperature at which they will 
be vended whether or not the machine is designed to equally cool all 
products within the machine. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2).
    In response to the 2013 BVM Framework, DOE received several 
comments concerning additional temperature measurements. Wittern 
commented that it did not agree with the definition of ``fully cooled'' 
in the framework because it required temperature measurements of all 
products, which would not be practical

[[Page 46917]]

and would be extremely costly. Wittern also commented that the average 
of next-to-vend beverage temperature measurements is sufficient as a 
baseline to ensure compliance. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) AMS agreed 
with the rationale of additional temperature measurement requirements 
but argued that the data collected should only be used in a general 
way. (AMS, No 17 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that DOE should 
consider requiring additional thermocouples throughout the different 
zones of the equipment in order to verify the equipment's cooling 
mechanism (fully cooled or zone-cooled), and added that DOE can refer 
to the test procedure for residential refrigeration equipment. (CA 
IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5) The Joint Comment stated that it supports 
additional product temperature measurements that could be used to 
verify a unit's equipment class. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2)
    Royal and NAMA did not support the addition of requirements of 
temperature measurements at locations other than the next-to-vend 
position because the location of such thermocouples is not specified in 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 and will increase the time and cost of 
testing, creating undue hardship on small manufacturers by requiring 
them to expand their laboratory equipment and resources. (Royal, No. 11 
at p. 4; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 3) NAMA also commented that all temperature 
measurements should continue to be made in the next-to-vend package, 
focusing on the products that are conditioned for immediate sale to the 
consumer. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 3) Wittern commented that it would prefer 
to minimize the number of thermocouples needed for the test, as it is 
almost maxed out on the capabilities of its data acquisition equipment. 
(Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2)
    DOE acknowledges the comments of interested parties regarding the 
need for additional temperature measurements and the potential 
associated burden with such measurements, but notes that a quantitative 
and objective test method is required to unambiguously differentiate 
Class A and Class B equipment in cases where the appropriate 
categorization of equipment may not be clear. Therefore, in today's 
NOPR, DOE is proposing a test method to verify whether refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machines meet the definition of 
``fully cooled.'' The proposed test method is based on the difference 
between the average next-to-vend temperature and the average 
temperature of standard test packages placed in the furthest from next-
to-vend position during the test period. Specifically, DOE proposes to 
amend the regulatory text to clarify that a beverage vending machine is 
fully cooled if the difference between these two averages is no greater 
than 10 [deg]F during the test period.
    DOE recognizes the comments of interested parties stating that it 
is difficult to establish a strict range that will be universally 
applicable to all types of Class A and Class B refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines. Specifically, it is possible that 
some machines that have next-to-vend beverages stored throughout the 
vertical axis of the usable refrigerated space could have differences 
between the average next-to-vend temperature and the average furthest 
from next-to-vend temperature (along the horizontal axis) that are 
greater than any range DOE may set. Conversely, machines that have 
next-to-vend beverages only in the bottom of the machine (stack 
machines) could have differences between the average next-to-vend 
temperature and the furthest from next-to-vend temperature (along the 
vertical access) that are less than any range DOE may set. However, DOE 
notes that a quantitative test is required to ensure consistent 
categorization among manufacturers and for appropriate application of 
the standards.
    DOE believes that a 10 [deg]F temperature range is sufficiently 
broad so that it will effectively categorize machines in which the 
entire refrigerated volume is fully cooled. DOE also notes that such a 
temperature range may encourage manufacturers of Class B, zone-cooled 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines to ensure that 
the refrigeration system is, in fact, only cooling the bottom portion 
of the machine where the next-to-vend beverages are located, which is 
an inherently more energy efficient design. DOE does not believe a 
strict temperature range would create a loophole for manufacturers to 
modify the design of Class A machines such that the temperature 
requirement is not met and the equipment can be certified as a Class B 
machine due to the specific customer utility of fully cooled machines.
    As such, DOE proposes to establish an optional test method for 
determining if a given refrigerated bottled or canned unit meets DOE's 
definition of ``fully cooled'' where standard test packages would be 
placed in representative locations furthest from each next-to-vend 
beverage location, in addition to every next-to-vend beverage position 
as is currently required. For beverage vending machines with horizontal 
product rows, or spirals, this would require a standard test package at 
the back of the horizontal product rows in the four corners of the 
machine (e.g., bottom right, bottom left, top right, and top left). For 
beverage vending machines with standard products configured in a 
vertical stack, this would include an additional standard test package 
at the top of each stack. To determine if a given refrigerated bottled 
or canned beverage vending machine was fully cooled, manufacturers 
would determine the average temperature of the standard test packages 
in the furthest from the next-to-vend position over the entire test 
period and compare that value to the integrated average temperature of 
standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions. If the 
difference between these two values is less than or equal to 10 [deg]F, 
the tested unit would be considered fully cooled.
    DOE notes that this test method would not be required to certify 
equipment but would be the method used by DOE to determine the 
appropriate equipment class for enforcement purposes. Therefore, DOE's 
proposed definition and test method would not require manufacturers to 
take any additional temperature measurements beyond what is currently 
specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, as incorporated, and ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, as proposed. Even if manufacturers elect to 
perform this proposed test method for all certified BVM models, DOE 
does not believe this will significantly increase the burden of 
conducting the BVM test procedure. A detailed analysis of the 
incremental burden associated with the fully cooled validation 
procedure is included in section IV.B.
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of ``fully 
cooled.'' DOE would further appreciate comment as to whether the 
proposed definition aligns with the classifications of Class A and 
Class B equipment currently used in industry.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed fully cooled validation test 
method. Specifically, DOE requests comment as to whether a range of 10 
[deg]F is an appropriate threshold to differentiate fully cooled 
equipment and any incremental burden on manufacturers associated with 
the optional test method for determining if a BVM model meets the 
definition of ``fully cooled.''
8. Placement of Thermocouples During Testing
    DOE has realized that there is currently a lack of specificity in 
the DOE test procedure regarding proper placement of thermocouple wires

[[Page 46918]]

during testing. DOE proposes to clarify that, in order to avoid 
compromising the thermal integrity of the vending machine, thermocouple 
wires should not be run through the dispensing door. Instead, the wires 
should be fed through the gasket, as it will form around them and 
maintain a better thermal seal for the cooled compartment. As such, DOE 
proposes to add text to the BVM test procedure in Appendix A and 
Appendix B specifying that sensors shall be installed in a manner that 
does not affect energy performance. Specifically, DOE proposes to amend 
the regulatory text to require that thermocouple wires be run through 
the door gasket and not through the dispensing door of the beverage 
vending machine such that the sensor pathway is sealed to prohibit 
airflow between the interior refrigerated volume and the ambient room 
air.
9. Establishing Testing Provisions at the Lowest Application Product 
Temperature
    DOE's current test procedure requires that an average next-to-vend 
temperature of 36 [deg]F  1 [deg]F be maintained throughout 
the test, as required by the energy performance test (section 7.2) in 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 contains 
the same requirement. DOE is aware that certain models of beverage 
vending machines available on the market are covered by DOE's test 
procedure and energy conservation standards, but are not designed to 
maintain the prescribed rating temperature, and thus cannot be tested 
in accordance with the DOE test procedure. Manufacturers of such 
equipment currently must request a test procedure waiver to comply with 
DOE's energy conservation standards in accordance with 10 CFR 431.401.
    While DOE recognizes that the majority of covered beverage vending 
machines can be tested at the established rating temperature of 36 
[deg]F, DOE is aware of some unique BVM models that are designed to 
operate much higher than 36 [deg]F and cannot operate at 36 [deg]F. As 
such, in the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE discussed adopting 
provisions for testing equipment that cannot operate at the specified 
next-to-vend beverage temperature at the equipment's lowest application 
product temperature. DOE added that, in this context, the lowest 
application product temperature would describe the lowest temperature 
at which the beverage vending machine is capable of operating and is 
often indicated by the lowest setting on a unit's thermostat. In 
response to the 2013 BVM Framework document, DOE received several 
comments regarding a proposed lowest application product temperature 
provision. Both Royal and NAMA disagreed with allowing BVM models that 
cannot achieve an average temperature of next-to-vend products of 36 
[deg]F ( 1 [deg]F) to instead be tested at the lowest 
application product temperature, contending that test procedures should 
use ANSI-approved technical standards. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 3; NAMA, 
No. 8 at p. 3) Wittern saw no need for the lowest application product 
temperature provision. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) AMS supported the 
provision as long as there is no attendant change in MDEC calculation. 
(AMS, No. 17 at p. 2)
    DOE is proposing amendments to its test procedure for beverage 
vending machines to allow covered beverage vending machines that cannot 
achieve an average next-to-vend temperature of 36 [deg]F ( 
1 [deg]F) to instead be tested at their lowest application product 
temperature. DOE believes that testing at the lowest application 
product temperature would best allow for the measurement of DEC of 
equipment that cannot maintain an average next-to-vend temperature of 
36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F). The lowest application product 
temperature provision would be consistent with DOE's 2014 test 
procedure final rule for commercial refrigeration equipment, where an 
identical provision was adopted for commercial refrigeration equipment 
that could not maintain the required integrated average product 
temperature specified for its given equipment class. 79 FR 22277, 
22297-22298, 22308 (April 21, 2014).
    In the context of beverage vending machines, the lowest application 
product temperature would describe the lowest temperature at which a 
beverage vending machine model is capable of maintaining next-to-vend 
beverages and could correspond to the lowest setting on a unit's 
thermostat. For beverage vending machines that cannot maintain an 
average next-to-vend temperature of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F), 
the lowest application product temperature provision would specify a 
revised average beverage temperature for beverages in the next-to-vend 
position, but would not modify any other requirements of the DOE test 
procedure. Equipment tested and certified using the lowest application 
product temperature would be required to meet the standard applicable 
for its equipment class and refrigerated volume, and the manufacturer 
would be required to maintain records of the lowest application product 
temperature at which a given model is rated.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt a lowest application 
product temperature provision for covered beverage vending machines 
that cannot be tested at the specified average next-to-vend temperature 
of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F).
    DOE also requests comment on how the lowest application product 
temperature might be best determined for beverage vending machines and 
whether the lowest thermostat setting is a reasonable approach for most 
equipment. DOE requests comment on how to determine the lowest 
application product temperature for equipment without thermostats.
10. Clarifications to Certification and Reporting Requirements
    DOE notes that 10 CFR 429.52(b)(2) contains requirements for 
certification reports for covered beverage vending machines. 
Specifically, DOE requires reporting of ``maximum average daily energy 
consumption.'' However, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 describes the 
test procedure for determining ``daily energy consumption'' as the 
measured result for a given model of beverage vending machine. To be 
consistent, DOE is proposing updating the reporting requirements at 10 
CFR 429.52(b)(2) to reference ``daily energy consumption'' rather than 
``maximum average daily energy consumption.'' DOE notes that it intends 
for manufacturers to include in their certification reports the 
measured ``daily energy consumption'' for each basic model of beverage 
vending machine. The ``maximum daily energy consumption'' referenced in 
10 CFR 431.296 for a given model of beverage vending machine is the 
maximum permissible energy consumption (i.e., the energy conservation 
standard) level for that model, while the ``daily energy consumption'' 
is the measured energy consumption determined through the DOE test 
procedure. The ``daily energy consumption'' of a given BVM basic model 
measured in the DOE test procedure and reported in accordance with 10 
CFR 429.52(b)(2) should be compared to the ``maximum daily energy 
consumption'' for the basic model's respective equipment class in the 
standard table in 10 CFR 431.296. Specifically, the ``daily energy 
consumption'' determined and reported for each BVM basic model shall 
not exceed the relevant ``maximum daily energy consumption'' value 
noted in the standard table. Therefore, DOE proposes to update the 
language at 10 CFR 429.52(b)(2) to request the ``daily energy 
consumption'' of covered models and update the language at 10 CFR 
431.296 to specify that the ``daily energy consumption'' of 
refrigerated bottled or

[[Page 46919]]

canned shall not exceed the ``maximum daily energy consumption'' 
specified in the energy conservation standard table.
11. Treatment of Certain Accessories During Testing
    In reviewing its test procedure for refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines, DOE recognized that the existing test 
procedure does not clearly specify the appropriate operation of some 
components and accessories when conducting the DOE test procedure. 
Given this, DOE understands that there is room for misinterpretation of 
the requirements for equipment configuration where the DOE test 
procedure is currently ambiguous or silent. As such, DOE is proposing 
to clarify the proper configuration and operation of several specific 
components and accessories in the DOE test procedure.
    DOE emphasizes that the clarifications discussed in this section 
III.A.11 serve only to unambiguously specify the intent of the current 
DOE test procedure. However, DOE recognizes that, because the DOE test 
procedure was previously silent or ambiguous on the specific treatment 
of some components, it is possible that some BVM manufacturers 
misinterpreted DOE's test procedure and, thus, some BVM models were 
tested inconsistently. Therefore, some BVM models may require 
recertification based on these new clarifications, but this is only 
because these models were not tested in a manner consistent with the 
DOE test procedure or the majority of BVM models. Since these 
clarifications do not represent new amendments or requirements when 
conducting the DOE test procedure, DOE believes that it is appropriate 
that the proposed revised and additional language be required for 
equipment testing as of 180 days after publication of any final rule 
adopting such revised or additional language.
    DOE received several comments regarding the requirements for 
energy-consuming devices unrelated to lighting, refrigeration, or 
beverage dispensing in the DOE test procedure. AMS commented that ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1 does not mention coin-changing, bill-validating, 
or cashless systems, one or more of which is always included on a 
vending machine and some of which may consume energy in amounts that 
might have a slight effect on DEC. AMS recommended the addition of a 
clarification that these devices are not required to be in place during 
testing. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 2) The Joint Comment requested that DOE 
clarify how machines with interactive touch screens or other energy-
consuming features are tested under the current test procedure, and 
consider amending the test procedure to capture this energy use if it 
is not currently captured so that manufacturers will have an incentive 
to reduce this energy use. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) Royal 
recommended an alternate energy specification for beverage vending 
machines that incorporates off-the-shelf components that contribute to 
increased energy use, but also have a parallel DOE requirement for 
energy use. Royal stated that the BVM energy conservation standard 
should include an appropriate allowance for incorporated components 
that must meet a separate DOE standard for energy use. (Royal, No. 11 
at p. 8) Royal and NAMA commented that manufacturers are constantly 
being asked to develop equipment that combines other products and 
additional functionality beyond cooling of beverages, and that such 
equipment is generally considered to be outside the scope of the ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 test procedure. Royal and NAMA further 
commented that they anticipate an increasing number of customer 
requests for such components. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 8; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 
9)
    In addition, Royal and NAMA commented that they offer ``heating 
mode'' for outdoor machines in cold climates as an optional accessory; 
however, this mode has very limited demand and therefore limited impact 
on annual power used by beverage vending machines in the United States. 
Royal recommended that DOE not evaluate this feature. (Royal, No. 11 at 
p. 12; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 15) Royal also commented that none of its 
vending machines for outdoor applications have heaters or hot gas 
defrost mode, and that heaters that are installed are probably an 
after-market component or an optional accessory. (Royal, No. 7 at p. 
93)
    AMS and Crane Merchandising (Crane) commented that they manufacture 
and sell machines with heaters for use in outside climates, although 
the quantities sold are very small and the heaters are only activated 
in sub-freezing conditions. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 11; Crane, No. 7 at p. 
91) Accordingly, AMS recommended DOE disregard the issue altogether. 
(AMS, No.17 at p. 11) AMS added that, being at high efficiency on the 
cooling side generally means equally at high efficiency on the heating 
side. Because most of these heating systems are based on electricity, 
which is essentially 100-percent efficient at heating, AMS added that 
DOE can ignore additional energy use from these features. (AMS, No. 7 
at p. 93)
    In response to comments submitted by interested parties, DOE notes 
that any device that is integral to the intended operation of the 
beverage vending machine must be included in the test. In this context, 
DOE interprets integral to mean necessary for operation of the BVM 
model in a manner that meets the DOE definition for refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine. That is, the accessory or 
component is required for the BVM model to cool bottled or canned 
beverages and/or dispense bottled or canned beverages on payment. In 
addition, any manually-controllable energy-consuming accessories that 
are integral to the performance of the beverage vending machine 
refrigeration system must be in place during testing if offered for 
sale with that basic model and must be tested at the most energy-
consuming setting. An exception applies for accessories that are 
controlled by automatic controls, which shall be tested in the 
automatic state. Optional accessories that do not affect the measured 
energy use of covered equipment generally do not need to be included in 
the test. To clarify these requirements, DOE proposes to add language 
in Appendix A and Appendix B regarding the specific treatment of 
components and accessories during testing, including the specific 
exclusion of heaters installed solely for preventing the freezing of 
sealed beverages in the winter in extremely cold climates. The ensuing 
sections discuss the treatment of specific features, components, and 
accessories under the existing and any amended DOE test procedure 
provisions.
a. Money-Processing Equipment
    Money-processing devices are integral to the vending function of 
the beverage vending machine and, accordingly, should be in place and 
functional during testing. Money-processing equipment include, but are 
not limited to coin mechanisms, bill validators, and credit card 
readers. When certifying a vending machine, the most energy-consuming 
combination of money-processing equipment should be used, and all other 
less energy-consumptive combinations may be listed as different models 
covered under that basic model. Alternatively, manufacturers may wish 
to certify and make representations regarding the energy use of each 
combination of money-processing equipment as a different basic model. 
In order to certify each combination as a separate basic model, a 
manufacturer would be required to maintain test data

[[Page 46920]]

from testing of the machine in each configuration.
b. Interior Lighting
    Refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines typically 
include lighting to illuminate the product, in the case of Class A 
equipment, or illuminate display panels that also serve as the physical 
walls of the beverage vending machine. In both cases, these lights are 
internal to the physical walls of the beverage vending machine and, 
thus, deemed integral to the operation of the equipment. The DOE test 
procedure, through incorporation of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, 
currently requires beverage vending machines to be tested with ``normal 
lighting and control settings.'' The revised ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2010 includes the same requirement.
    DOE recognizes that this specification could be interpreted 
differently in different circumstances and, as such, proposes to amend 
the regulatory text to clarify the treatment of internal lighting when 
conducting the DOE test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposes an 
amendment to the regulatory text stating that lighting that is 
contained within or is part of the physical boundary of the 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine established by 
the top, bottom, and side panels of the equipment be placed in its 
maximum energy consuming state. DOE believes that the maximum energy 
consuming state is consistent with the ``normal'' setting and is the 
operation most commonly employed in the field. In DOE's experience, 
most beverage vending machines employ up to three lighting settings: 
``on,'' ``dim,'' and ``off.'' To the extent that there are multiple 
``on'' settings, DOE understands that these settings typically 
constitute various dimming settings and do not represent settings that 
are brighter or more-energy consuming than the expected field 
operation. More importantly, DOE believes that specifying that internal 
lighting be operated in the maximum energy consuming state provides 
clear and unambiguous instructions that are not subject to 
interpretation of testing personnel. DOE believes such a specification 
will result in consistent and repeatable test results for beverage 
vending machines under the DOE test procedure.
    DOE finds this clarification to be applicable to equipment tested 
under Appendix A to demonstrate compliance with existing energy 
conservation standards, as well as to equipment testing using Appendix 
B to demonstrate compliance with any future energy conservation 
standards. Therefore, DOE proposes to add language to both Appendix A 
and Appendix B clarifying that internal lighting shall be operating in 
its maximum energy consuming state when conducting the DOE test 
procedure.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify in Appendices A and 
B that internal lighting shall be operated in the maximum energy 
consuming state under the DOE test procedure.
    DOE requests comment on whether the maximum energy consuming state 
for internal lighting is consistent with ``normal'' operation.
c. External Customer Display Signs, Lights, or Digital Screens
    In addition to this typical internal case lighting. DOE understands 
that some refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines may 
incorporate additional exterior lighting or signage, outside of the 
body of the refrigerated BVM cabinet. This lighting and signage is 
optional and is not integral to the cabinet. Further, this auxiliary 
signage does not illuminate product inside the body of the cabinet. In 
addition, some models may include touchscreens or lighted displays. DOE 
recognizes that external customer display signs, lighting, and digital 
screens will increase the energy use of refrigerated beverage vending 
machines that include those features, potentially significantly so. For 
example, the average energy use of televisions and digital screens is 
approximately 2.58 kWh/day in on mode and 0.01 kWh/day for televisions 
in stand-by mode \10\ (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0026, No. 27). The 
average energy use of a television in on mode represents between 50 and 
100 percent of the energy use of an average beverage vending machine, 
depending on the BVM size and equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Note that the DOE test procedure for televisions includes 
measurement of power consumed in on mode at different screen 
illumination levels and power consumed in several standby modes. 10 
CFR 430.23. This average calculation of daily energy consumption 
represents an average of the power consumed in each of the on mode 
and standby mode, respectively, multiplied by 24 hours/day and 
divided by 1,000 watts/kilowatt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that such external customer display signs, lighting, or 
digital screens are not explicitly addressed in the DOE test procedure 
or in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-
2010. However, ASHRAE has issued an interpretation to ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2010, which states that ``the Standard (32.1) addresses 
the refrigerated/delivery system portion of the machine. Thus, any 
peripheral devices, not necessary for the basic function of the vending 
machine are not addressed by Standard 32.1.'' Similarly, DOE finds that 
external customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens are 
peripheral to the primary functionality of a refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machine, as defined at 10 CFR 431. 292, and 
thus their energy use should not be accounted for in the measured DEC 
of BVM models.
    Further, as the DOE test procedure does not provide guidance for 
how to operate such external customer display signs, lighting, and 
digital screens, it would be inconsistent with the DOE test procedure 
to include the energy use of external customer display signs, lighting, 
and digital screens in the measured DEC of BVM models. As such, in the 
current DOE test procedure, as specified and clarified in Appendix A in 
this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes to clarify that customer display 
signs, lighting, and digital screens that are external to the 
refrigerated beverage vending machine and not integral to the operation 
of the primary refrigeration or vending functions (e.g., allow 
consumers to make a product selection) may be disabled, disconnected, 
or otherwise de-energized. Lighting that is internal to the 
refrigerated beverage vending machine cabinet or necessary for the 
vending function must be placed in its maximum energy consuming state, 
as discussed in section III.A.11.b. and subsequently in this section 
III.A.11.c.
    Some BVM models also include customer display signs, lighting, or 
digital screens that are integral to the functionality of the 
refrigerated beverage vending machine in that it cannot perform the 
primary refrigeration and vending functions if such equipment is 
disabled or removed. For example, if a digital screen is integrated 
into the cabinetry or controls of a BVM model such that it cannot be 
independently de-energized or disabled and/or the BVM cannot dispense 
product without the digital screen being energized, the digital screen 
would be deemed integral to the BVM model. In this case, the integral 
customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens should be put in 
its lowest energy-consuming state. If a digital screen performs the 
vending or money-processing function, that screen should be placed in 
its lowest energy-consuming state that still allows the money-
processing feature to function. DOE believes that this will provide 
equitable treatment with other money-processing devices that must be

[[Page 46921]]

energized, as specified in section III.A.11.a.
    To clarify the treatment of external and integrated customer 
display signs, lighting, and digital screens, DOE proposes to add 
language to the test procedure in Appendix A specifying the treatment 
of these devices when certifying BVM models under the existing energy 
conservation standards. DOE notes that this includes television 
displays, as commented on by Royal and NAMA.
    DOE notes, however, that the use of interactive, multi-purpose 
energized displays are becoming much more common in new equipment 
designs. As the use of such customer display signs, lighting, and 
digital screens become more ubiquitous in refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machine design, it may be important to include 
the energy use of such features in the measured DEC of BVM models. DOE 
notes that these energized displays are also becoming much more 
interactive and more commonly are integral to the refrigeration or 
vending functionality of the refrigerated beverage vending machine. 
Therefore, it may be more representative to capture some measure of 
energy use of external, integral customer display signs, lighting, and 
digital screens in the measured DEC of the BVM model.
    Specifying, however, that external, integral customer display 
signs, lighting, and digital screens be operated as the equipment would 
typically be used in the field may significantly increase the energy 
use of BVM models and capturing the energy use of such auxiliary 
functions may not be representative of the primary refrigeration and 
vending functions of the refrigerated beverage vending machine. In 
addition, specifying typical field operation for the variety of 
equipment configurations and operating modes may significantly increase 
the complexity of testing BVM models.
    As such, DOE believes that capturing the standby energy use of such 
external, integral customer display signs, lighting, and digital 
screens installed on a given BVM model would be a sufficiently 
representative and reasonable alternative that can be consistently 
implemented across BVM models. In this way, the energy use associated 
with the primary refrigeration and vending functions of the 
refrigerated beverage vending machine continue to constitute the 
majority of the measured DEC value, but the incremental standby energy 
use of any external customer display signs, lighting, and digital 
screens that are integral to the BVM model are minimally accounted for 
in a consistent and repeatable manner.
    Therefore, DOE proposes that under the amended DOE test procedure 
presented in Appendix B, all external, integral customer display signs, 
lighting, and digital screens be placed in standby mode. For the 
purposes of the BVM test procedure, DOE proposes to incorporate a 
definition for standby mode, applicable to external, integral customer 
display signs, lighting, and digital screens in Appendix B. DOE 
proposes to define standby mode as the mode of operation in which any 
external, integral customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens 
are connected to mains power, do not produce the intended illumination, 
display, or interaction functionality, and can be switched into another 
mode automatically with only a remote user-generated or an internal 
signal. If the external, integral customer display signs, lighting, or 
digital screens do not have a standby mode, the integral customer 
display signs, lighting, or digital screens would be placed in the 
lowest energy-consuming state, similar to Appendix A. In addition, if a 
digital screen performs the vending or money-processing function, that 
screen should be placed in its lowest energy-consuming state that still 
allows the money-processing feature to function.
    DOE notes that, under this proposal, all non-integral, external 
customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens that are purely 
auxiliary and can be independently energized and operated, would 
continue to be disconnected, disabled, or otherwise de-energized in 
Appendix B, as specified in Appendix A.
    DOE requests comment on the range of equipment that should be 
addressed in this category of accessories and if the proposed 
terminology of customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens is 
sufficient to capture the variety of similar auxiliary energy-consuming 
accessories that might be installed on BVM models.
    DOE requests comment on the treatment of external and integral 
customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens in Appendix A.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed treatment of external and 
integral customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens in 
Appendix B. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether disabling 
external devices and placing integral devices in standby mode or their 
lowest energy-consuming state is sufficiently representative of the 
energy use of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of standby mode as 
the mode of operation in which the external, integral customer display 
signs, lighting, or digital screens is connected to mains power, does 
not produce the intended illumination, display, or interaction 
functionality, and can be switched into another mode automatically with 
only a remote user-generated or an internal signal.
    For digital screens that also perform the vending or money-
processing function, DOE requests comment on the proposal to place 
these screens in their lowest energy-consuming state that still allows 
the money-processing feature to function.
d. Anti-Sweat and Other Electric Resistance Heaters
    Class A beverage vending machines may come equipped with anti-sweat 
electric resistance heaters that serve to evaporate any water that 
condenses on the surface of the door or walls during operation.
    DOE proposes to amend the regulatory text to clarify that anti-
sweat and other electric resistance heaters should be operational 
during testing under the DOE test procedure. Models with a user-
selectable setting must be turned on and set to the maximum usage 
position. Models featuring an automatic, non-user-adjustable controller 
that turns on or off based on environmental conditions must be 
operating in the automatic state. Additionally, DOE proposes to amend 
the regulatory text to clarify that, if a unit is not shipped with a 
controller from the point of manufacture, and is intended to be used 
with a controller, the manufacturer must make representations of the 
basic model based upon the rated performance of that basic model as 
tested when equipped with an appropriate controller. DOE is proposing 
to add clarifying language in Appendix A and Appendix B to specify that 
anti-sweat or other electric resistance heaters must be installed and 
operated in their automatic state, if controlled, or in their maximum 
energy consuming position, if manually adjustable.
e. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps
    Beverage vending machines capture water from the air entering the 
cabinet during operation by causing the water to condense and then 
freeze on the evaporator coil of the equipment. During a defrost cycle, 
this frost is melted, and the meltwater produced must be removed from 
the unit. In many types of equipment, this meltwater is collected in a 
pan beneath the unit.

[[Page 46922]]

Some models of beverage vending machines come equipped with electric 
resistance heaters that evaporate this water out of the pan and into 
the ambient air. Other models may come equipped with pumps that pump 
meltwater to an external drain.
    In DOE's view, these electric resistance heaters and condensate 
pumps must be installed and operational during testing pursuant to the 
DOE test procedure as they would be used in the field during the entire 
test. The ``entire test'' includes stabilization, low power mode, and 
vending state test periods. Prior to the start of the stabilization 
period, the condensate pan should be dry. During the entirety of the 
period of the test following the start of the stabilization period, any 
condensate moisture generated should be allowed to accumulate in the 
pan, as it would during normal operations. Water should not be manually 
added to or removed from the condensate pan at any time during the 
entire test. If the condensate heater or pump is equipped with controls 
to initiate the operation of the heater or pump based on water level or 
ambient conditions, these controls may be enabled and the heater or 
pump should be operated in the automatic setting.
    DOE is aware that manufacturers may offer condensate pan heaters 
and pumps such that they are shipped separately from, or not installed 
upon, the specific beverage vending machine unit with which they would 
be used in normal operation. DOE believes that, if the manufacturer 
offers a given basic model for sale with an available condensate pan 
heater or pump, the manufacturer must make representations of the 
performance of the basic model as tested with the feature in place. DOE 
is proposing to add clarifying language in Appendix A and Appendix B to 
specify that, during testing pursuant to the DOE test procedure, 
condensate pan heaters and pumps must be installed and operated as they 
would be used in the field.
f. Illuminated Temperature Displays
    Manufacturers may equip some beverage vending machine models with 
illuminated displays that provide visual information to the equipment 
operator regarding, for example, the temperature inside the 
refrigerated case. DOE understands this feature to be integral to the 
design of the given model and proposes to amend the regulatory text to 
clarify that any illuminated temperature displays should be enabled 
during the test as they would be during normal field operation. DOE is 
proposing to add clarifying language in Appendix A and Appendix B to 
address illuminated temperature displays and alarms.
g. Condenser Filters
    Manufacturers may offer models equipped with nonpermanent filters 
over a model's condenser coil to prevent particulates from blocking the 
condenser coil and reducing airflow. DOE believes that these filters 
should be removed during testing pursuant to the DOE test procedure, as 
such accessories are optional and are not required for operation of the 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine. Further, these 
optional condenser filters are not expected to significantly impact 
energy use over the relatively short duration of the DOE test procedure 
and are more important for the long-term reliability of the equipment 
in the field. Therefore, to simplify testing of BVM models under the 
DOE test procedure, DOE proposes to add clarifying language to Appendix 
A and Appendix B that any optional condenser filters should be removed.
h. Security Covers
    Manufacturers may offer for sale with a basic model an option to 
include straps or other devices to secure the beverage vending machine 
and prevent theft or tampering. Because such security devices are not 
anticipated to affect the measured energy use of covered equipment and 
will likely significantly complicate the loading and testing of BVM 
models, DOE intended that these security devices should be removed 
during testing under the DOE test procedure and proposes to add 
clarifying language to the proposed test procedures in Appendix A and 
Appendix B.
i. Coated Coils
    Coated coils, generally specified for use in units that will be 
subjected to environments in which acids or oxidizers are present, are 
treated with an additional coating (such as a layer of epoxy or 
polymer) as a barrier to protect the bare metal of the coil from 
deterioration through environmental contact. DOE believes the existing 
DOE test procedure accurately accounts for the performance of all types 
of coils, including those with coatings, and that no additional 
clarifications are needed in the test procedure.
j. General Purpose Outlets
    Some beverage vending machines may be offered for sale with 
integrated general purpose electrical outlets, which may be used to 
power additional equipment. DOE intended that, during testing pursuant 
to the DOE test procedure, no external load should be connected to the 
general purpose outlets contained within a unit and proposes to add 
clarifying language to Appendix A and Appendix B.
k. Crankcase Heaters and Electric Resistance Heaters for Cold Weather
    Some BVM models feature crankcase heaters or electric resistance 
heaters designed to keep the compressor warm in order to maintain the 
refrigerant at optimal conditions. They also prevent freezing of 
refrigerated beverages contained in the unit when the unit is operating 
at extremely low ambient temperatures. In DOE's view, if present, 
crankcase heaters and other electric resistance heaters for cold 
weather should be operational during the test. Under this proposal, if 
a control system, such as a thermostat or electronic controller, is 
used to modulate the operation of the heater, it should be used as 
intended per the manufacturer's instructions. DOE is proposing to add 
clarifying language regarding testing units with crankcase heaters and 
electric resistance heaters for cold weather.
    DOE acknowledges that the types of accessories and components that 
may be attached to a beverage vending machine are numerous and varied, 
as noted by Royal and NAMA. Regarding Royal's suggestion concerning 
calculation methods for different accessories, especially those that 
are covered under other DOE energy conservation standards, such as 
televisions, DOE believes that it is more straightforward and 
representative to measure the energy use of the BVM model directly, 
including any available energy-consuming accessories that are integral 
to the function of the beverage vending machine. Due to the variety of 
accessories that could be incorporated into a BVM model, DOE does not 
find it practical to incorporate calculations or algorithms into the 
DOE test procedure that would be sufficiently representative of the 
energy use of that specific BVM accessory and model. As such, DOE is 
not proposing any calculation-based methods for the purposes of 
establishing the energy use of BVM models or specific BVM accessories 
at this time.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify the treatment of 
accessories in the DOE test procedure.
    DOE also requests comment on any other accessories that may require 
special treatment or exemption.

[[Page 46923]]

B. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions To Account for Low Power 
Modes

    This NOPR also proposes an amendment to DOE's test procedure for 
beverage vending machines, to be included in a new Appendix B to 10 CFR 
part 431, subpart Q, which is intended to be used to demonstrate 
compliance with any new or amended standards established as a result of 
the associated ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket 
No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022). This amendment would establish provisions 
to account for equipment with low power modes and is proposed to ensure 
greater accuracy in testing. The proposed amendment is discussed in the 
following subsections, including applicable comments received from 
interested parties, definitions, methods, and DOE's responses.
1. Characteristics of Low Power Modes
    Many beverage vending machines are equipped with low power modes 
designed to be used during periods when demand for refrigerated 
beverages is low and there is opportunity to reduce equipment energy 
use without greatly affecting consumer utility. The features of these 
modes may include (but are not limited to) switching off or dimming 
lights, and raising the temperature set point (to which the unit cools 
the product) to a value higher than the temperature set point 
associated with the unit's vending mode. These low power modes are 
typically activated during periods when customer traffic is known or 
anticipated to be minimal or nonexistent (such as at night or when a 
facility is closed), though they may also be activated based on short-
term historical vend patterns or after a specified length of 
inactivity. Some low power modes may be operated on fixed schedules, 
while others may operate based on sensor input such as that from a 
motion sensor or customer interface on the machine. Individual machines 
may have multiple low power modes, such as a fixed low power mode 
allowing the refrigeration system to shut off during periods when 
customers are not available and an active low power mode during vending 
periods that dims the lights when customer activity is not detected 
after a certain length of time.
    ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, the test method incorporated by 
reference in the current DOE test procedure, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1-2010, the test method DOE proposes to incorporate by reference in 
this test procedure NOPR, both require that the vending machine be 
``operated with normal lighting and control settings, using only those 
energy management controls that are permanently operational and not 
capable of being adjusted by a machine operator.'' (ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2004 7.1.1(d)) These test procedures do not capture the 
widely available user-adjustable low power modes of operation in a 
representative manner, and manufacturers that offer this functionality 
are not able to reflect the increased efficiency of the unit under 
either of these test methods.
    Additionally, these test methods do not specify how to test 
equipment that has permanently operational controls that can be 
adjusted. An example of such equipment could be a machine with lights 
that automatically dim after a certain period of inactivity, and where 
the length of the period of inactivity required to cause the lights to 
dim can be adjusted to one of several values by a machine operator. In 
such a case, the lighting controls are permanently operational, but 
adjustable by a machine operator.
    Section 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2010 both specify that ``the test chamber and vending 
machine shall not be disturbed throughout the duration of the energy 
consumption test once the measurement instrumentation is in place.'' As 
already mentioned, DOE is aware that some currently available beverage 
vending machines come equipped with low power modes or features that 
become active after a certain period of inactivity. Due to the 
requirements of section 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 (both 2004 
and 2010 versions), it is possible for such features to become active 
during the test period for unrepresentative periods of time.
2. Comments Received by Interested Parties
    DOE received a variety of comments on the 2013 BVM Framework 
describing the current use of low power modes in BVM testing and the 
low power modes currently available on the market. Some of these 
comments supported capturing the effect of low power modes and even 
suggested approaches to account for low power modes in the test 
procedure. Other commenters opposed accounting for low power mode for 
several reasons.
    NAMA commented that all equipment should be tested as supplied by 
the factory, and only low power modes that cannot be disabled by the 
end user should be included in the test because allowing other low 
power modes creates the opportunity for the misrepresentation of the 
equipment's energy use and ambiguity within the test method. (NAMA, No. 
13 at p. 2) Royal and NAMA each commented that models with user-
adjustable controls that cannot be disabled should be operated in 
accordance with the manufacturer's recommended mode of operation under 
normal conditions or as shipped by the manufacturer, whichever results 
in higher energy use. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 5; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 4) The 
Joint Comment requested that DOE clarify how controls that cannot be 
adjusted in the field are currently captured by the DOE test 
procedures, and stated that the current application of the DOE test 
procedure may not be adequately reflecting field energy use. (Joint 
Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to try to ensure 
that the output of the test procedure comes close to representing the 
real-world energy use of equipment installed in the field, consistent 
with EPCA requirements, and especially that low power modes do not 
allow lights to be dimmed or powered off for uncharacteristically long 
periods of time as ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 currently permits. (CA 
IOUs, No. 19 at p. 4)
    NAMA commented that, as it understands, some equipment has power 
management functions installed by the original equipment manufacturer 
that cannot be disabled by the end user in any way and, therefore, are 
active during the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 test, but that some of this 
equipment has energy management settings that the user can modify that 
therefore does not meet the requirements of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1 test settings as currently written. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 4) Royal 
commented that its machines have energy management features that are 
built into the software but do not meet the requirement in ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2010 because the user can modify the energy management 
settings, and low power modes are accordingly not used during testing. 
(Royal, No. 11 at p. 4) AMS stated that its equipment includes controls 
that can be used both to increase operating set point temperatures and 
to decrease lighting intensity during periods of no sales activity, but 
that in accordance with its interpretation of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
32.1, these controls have never been used during testing. (AMS, No. 17 
at p. 2) AMS further described the low power software in its machines, 
which includes lighting and refrigeration low power modes that are 
entered into either based on sales history or by operator programming, 
and noted that the

[[Page 46924]]

elevated temperature is prohibited if the health and safety controls 
are set for items such as milk, which is a beverage but also a 
perishable item that requires strict temperature control. (AMS, No. 17 
at p. 3) AMS also commented that the field-allowable times of low power 
mode can vary widely; from 0 to 15 hours per day during the week and 
total weekend periods, and that any benchmark is just a benchmark and 
cannot be expected to exactly reflect the true activity of a specific 
machine in the field. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 3)
    Royal did not support the creation of a provision to measure the 
low power modes of operation, stating that tests should not be 
conducted or accepted if the average product temperature cannot be 
maintained within 36 [deg]F ( 1[deg]F) as specified in 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. (Royal, No. 8 at p. 5) NAMA commented 
that it does not support the creation of a provision to measure the 
impact of low power modes of operation, except in the case where an 
energy management system is incorporated into the original equipment 
manufacturer design of the vending machine and cannot be defeated or 
removed by the end user. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 5) Wittern stated that it 
opposed the creation of a provision to measure the impact of low power 
modes of operation as it would add another level of complexity, and it 
wants to keep testing, reporting, and compliance related issues to a 
minimum. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) AMS agreed that the present test 
method does not capture the energy savings potential of optional power-
saving modes. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 4)
    The CA IOUs commented that throughout the rulemaking process, DOE 
should collect information from industry, purchasers, and consumers on 
usage profiles of vending machines in order to best represent real-
world energy use in the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 4) The 
CA IOUs also commented that DOE should include provisions to measure 
the energy use of beverage vending machines in low power modes and get 
an understanding of how such states are employed in installed 
equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 4) The Joint Comment stated that it 
generally supports the inclusion of test procedure provisions to 
capture the energy savings benefit of controls, but encouraged DOE to 
attempt to use field use data so that the test procedures can 
reasonably reflect the actual energy savings from these controls. 
(Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) AMS recommended that if evaluation of 
energy-saving options is to be done at all, it should be done in a 
totally separate specification and procedure because the wide range of 
energy-saving options would be very difficult to standardize in the 
basic MDEC requirements. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 3) AMS further commented 
that if measurements of low power modes are made they should be done 
with fixed temperature, lighting, and any other low-energy settings 
that may be used and be done for a fixed period of time less than 24 
hours with calculations applied to determine the potential savings per 
24-hour period. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 3)
3. DOE's Proposed Low Power Mode Test Provisions
    DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure to provide clear and 
consistent provisions for testing beverage vending machines both in low 
power mode and in vending environments and to indicate what settings 
are to be used for the testing of machines with energy management 
controls that are permanently operational (meaning those that cannot be 
disabled) but can be adjusted by the operator. DOE acknowledges the 
concerns of interested parties but believes that a BVM test procedure 
that accounts for low power modes of operation is necessary for 
accuracy of testing, since beverage vending machines are commonly 
equipped and operated with low power modes in the field. Sections a, b, 
and f of this section III.B.3 discuss definitions related to the low 
power mode test procedure, a physical test method DOE considered, and 
DOE's proposed method for accounting for low power modes of operation 
in the DOE test procedure, respectively.
a. Definitions Related to the Low Power Mode Test Procedure
    DOE is proposing to allow manufacturers of equipment with a low 
power mode to enable those features during a fixed period of time 
during the BVM test procedure. DOE proposes to define ``low power 
mode'' as a state in which a beverage vending machine's lighting, 
refrigeration, and/or other energy-using systems are automatically 
adjusted (without user intervention) such that they consume less energy 
than they consume in an active vending environment when the beverage 
vending machine is capable of dispensing sealed beverages at the 
intended vending temperature (36  1 [deg]F).
    DOE also notes that it may be beneficial to differentiate between 
low power modes that affect the refrigeration system and allow the 
cabinet temperature to increase during a specified period and those 
that affect other energy-consuming accessories, such as lighting, 
display signage, or vending equipment. As such, DOE proposes to define 
``refrigeration system low power mode'' and ``accessory low power 
mode.'' Refrigeration system low power mode would be defined as a state 
in which a beverage vending machine's refrigeration system is in low 
power mode. To qualify as refrigeration system low power mode, the 
average next-to-vend temperature must automatically (without user 
intervention) raise to 40 [deg]F or higher and remain above this 
threshold for at least one hour. ``Accessory low power mode'' would be 
defined as a state in which a beverage vending machine's lighting and/
or other non-refrigeration energy-using systems are in low power mode. 
This may include, but is not limited to, dimming or turning off lights 
or display signage, but does not include adjustment of the 
refrigeration system.
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of ``low power 
mode,'' ``refrigeration low power mode,'' and ``accessory low power 
mode.''
b. Potential Low Power Mode Test Methods Based on Physical Testing
    DOE considered several options to account for low power modes in 
the DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines, including 
physical testing and calculation-based methods. DOE recognizes that 
objectively determining the performance of low power mode operation by 
accounting for both refrigeration and accessory low power modes would 
be the most accurate way to best represent the variety of low power 
mode controls available. In addition, a physical test method would 
provide an unambiguous verification of low power mode efficacy and 
performance. As such, DOE considered an approach to account for low 
power modes of operation using two separate physical test procedures; 
one for the active vending state and one for the low power mode. This 
approach could combine the respective measured energy use from each 
test using a calculation. Such a method may be able to reflect the 
variations among different types of refrigeration low power modes and 
would physically verify the performance of the refrigeration low power 
mode. However, because this approach would not account for the pull-
down from low power mode to return to vending state, DOE determined 
that a method that does not account for pull-down energy use is not 
sufficiently representative of the energy use of this

[[Page 46925]]

equipment over a representative cycle of use.
    DOE also considered an approach in which equipment was allowed to 
enter low power mode, including both refrigeration and accessory low 
power modes, during a low power mode test period and required to return 
to the specified average next-to-vend temperature at the conclusion of 
the test. This would result in a test that included an 18-hour vending 
state test period, followed by a 6-hour low power mode test period, and 
finally a pull-down test period when the beverage vending machine would 
be required to return to 36  1 [deg]F for a duration of 
time, for example 1 minute, prior to concluding the test. The energy 
use associated with the 6-hour low power mode test period would then be 
adjusted to account for the length of the pull-down period to represent 
the energy use associated with a 6-hour period when vending is not 
required. For example, for a BVM model that took 1 hour to pull down, 
the energy use associated with the 6-hour low power mode test period 
would be reduced by 1 hour (i.e., multiplied by \5/6\). The measured 
DEC for that BVM model would then consist of the energy use associated 
with the vending state test period, the pull-down test period, and the 
adjusted low power mode test period. Such a method would provide an 
accurate representation of the variety of low power modes used in 
beverage vending machines over a 24-hour cycle of use.
    While physical testing of low power mode and any necessary pull-
down requirements would be the most accurate test method to account for 
both accessory and refrigeration low power modes of operation, it is 
DOE's understanding that refrigeration low power modes are extremely 
variable in terms of their control strategies and operation and, thus, 
this method may be difficult to implement in a repeatable manner. For 
example, some refrigerated beverage vending machines may have a pull-
down period in excess of 6-hours, in which case this method would not 
be appropriate. For those models, the energy consumed during the low 
power mode test period and the pull-down test period could be scaled to 
6-hours and added to the vending state test period energy use. However, 
such an approach would benefit beverage vending machines with pull-down 
periods longer than 6-hours and may provide a means for manufacturers 
to exploit the test procedure by designing equipment with extremely 
slow pull-down periods. Since this would reduce customer utility, DOE 
does not believe pull-down periods in excess of 6-hours would be 
common, but the possibility still exists to unfairly advantage 
equipment with extremely long pull-down periods.
    In addition, DOE believes that some refrigeration low power modes 
may require specific instructions from the manufacturer to modify or 
adjust the control systems precisely to accommodate the specific 6-hour 
time frame for low power mode operation, since the control variables 
are not always uniquely controllable via the user interface. This would 
also reduce the consistency and repeatability of such a physical test 
method and would make the method impractical to implement. Due to the 
difficulty of representing the wide variety of refrigeration low power 
modes in a consistent, fair, and reasonable manner, DOE determined that 
a purely physical test method may not be feasible.
c. Potential Low Power Mode Test Methods Using a Combination of 
Physical Testing for Accessory Low Power Mode and Calculated Credits 
for Refrigeration Low Power Mode
    To address the issue with repeatability, DOE also considered an 
alternate calculation-based approach. In this method, the 6-hour low 
power mode test period would only employ the accessory low power modes 
and the refrigeration system low power mode would not be engaged. 
Specifically, accessory low power modes that do not affect the cabinet 
temperature may be activated to adjust lighting, display signs, vending 
equipment, and other energized accessories to their minimally energy-
consuming state. However, all other requirements of the DOE test 
procedure remain unchanged, the unit being tested must remain connected 
to its power source throughout the test, and the test package 
temperature measurements taken during the low power mode test are 
incorporated into the integrated average temperature calculation. Under 
this method, refrigeration low power modes should not be enabled during 
the physical low power mode test. DOE believes that accessory low power 
modes are somewhat more consistent and easier to characterize under a 
physical test procedure and the resulting energy use reduction 
associated with the accessory low power mode test procedure will 
accurately represent the efficacy of accessory low power mode controls.
    DOE is aware, however, that beverage vending machines may be 
equipped with refrigeration low power modes that have the capability of 
saving energy in the field when the amount of extra energy consumption 
required to pull down from the elevated temperatures is less than the 
amount of energy saved during the refrigeration low power mode when the 
cabinet temperature is above the vending temperature. To account for 
the energy use of the refrigeration low power mode and the associated 
pull-down period in a consistent and repeatable manner, DOE also 
considered providing a calculation credit to those machines equipped 
with a refrigeration low power mode. Specifically, DOE is proposing to 
amend its test procedure to allow a credit equal to 3 percent of the 
measured DEC of any unit equipped with a refrigeration low power mode.
    DOE developed the 3 percent value based upon data from tests of the 
refrigeration low power modes of five different models (four Class A 
and one Class B). All units were tested by a third-party test 
laboratory using the current DOE BVM test procedure. The models 
selected represented a cross-section of the largest BVM manufacturers 
in the United States. Each unit was programmed to enter the low power 
mode at a specified time after temperature stabilization had been 
achieved and to exit the low power mode at a second specified time. 
Data was collected throughout the duration of the low power mode and 
continuously through the ensuing pull-down period until the next-to-
vend beverage temperature was again within the DOE test-specified 36 
[deg]F  1 [deg]F.
    The resulting test data was used to calculate approximate energy 
savings during a 6-hour window during which the average next-to-vend 
temperature was outside of the bounds of the required value for the DOE 
test procedure. This would correspond to the unit entering the 
refrigeration low power mode during a time when vending would not be 
expected to occur, and DOE used 6 hours as a representative duration of 
time for such a period. The energy consumption from the beginning of 
the window until the cabinet temperature had risen to a particular 
average next-to-vend temperature Tmax was added to the 
pulldown energy use from that same Tmax back to within the 
DOE test specified 36 [deg]F  1 [deg]F average next-to-vend 
temperature. Tmax was selected such that the time spent in 
the low power mode plus the time spent to pull down was as close to 6 
hours as possible within the resolution of the data, without being over 
6 hours. The low power mode energy consumption was calculated as the 
sum of the energy consumption during the period when the temperature 
was ``out-of-bounds,'' the energy consumption in that portion

[[Page 46926]]

of the pulldown, and, in order to account for the fact that lighting 
low power modes were employed with refrigeration low power modes, the 
amount of lighting energy that would have been used for normal 
operation in active vending mode was assumed during the duration of the 
low power mode. A DEC value was generated by using the ``out-of-
bounds'' energy consumption and the time-averaged steady state energy 
consumption from the DOE test procedure scaled by the remaining time to 
24 hours. The percent savings from the refrigeration low power mode was 
then calculated by comparing this DEC to the DEC results of the DOE 
test procedure for the same unit.
    Using this method, the energy savings from refrigeration low power 
modes in units tested averaged approximately 2.4%. DOE estimated that 
its methodology was conservative, because the out of bounds time used 
in the calculations was always less than the 6 hours out of bounds time 
being used as representative of typical applications. Therefore, DOE 
rounded up, using 3% as an estimate of savings attributable to 
refrigeration low power modes. In light of this initial investigation, 
DOE believes that 3 percent is representative of the refrigeration low 
power mode that is activated such that the average next-to-vend 
temperature is raised for a total of 6 hours, including both low power 
mode and pull-down, and therefore aligns with the methodology DOE is 
proposing for testing of other low power modes. DOE believes that a 
calculated energy credit will provide a reasonable representation of 
refrigeration low power modes without sacrificing test procedure 
repeatability, favoring specific technologies, or unnecessarily 
increasing burden.
d. Refrigeration Low Power Mode Verification Test Protocol
    DOE recognizes that a calculated energy credit will not account for 
differences in performance or efficacy among different types of 
refrigeration low power modes and will not objectively verify the 
performance or existence of a refrigerated low power mode. Therefore, a 
procedure to verify the existence of a refrigeration low power mode, as 
defined, may be required to prevent BVM models from taking the 3 
percent refrigeration low power mode credit without an effective 
refrigeration low power mode included in that BVM model. Such a 
refrigeration low power mode verification test method would include 
initiating the refrigeration low power mode after completion of the 24-
hour BVM test period, including the 18-hour active vending test period 
and the 6-hour low power mode test period, and recording the average 
temperature of the standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage 
positions for the next 2 hours. Over the course of this 2-hour period, 
the instantaneous average next-to-vend beverage temperatures, that is 
the spatial average of all next-to-vend beverages, must increase above 
40 [deg]F and remain above 40 [deg]F for at least one hour. The 
refrigerated beverage vending machine must also be capable of 
automatically returning itself to its normal operating conditions at 
the conclusion of the refrigeration low power mode. Therefore, at the 
conclusion of the 2-hour refrigeration low power mode verification test 
period, the refrigerated beverage vending machine must return to normal 
vending temperatures automatically without direct physical intervention 
by testing personnel. DOE notes that this validation test is not 
required to verify the DEC of BVM models but will be employed by DOE 
for enforcement purposes to verify the existence of a refrigeration low 
power mode.
e. DOE's Proposed Low Power Mode Test Method
    After considering the various methods, DOE determined that the 
calculation-based approach to accounting for refrigeration low power 
modes is the best methodology available to ensure accuracy of 
representation of energy use, consistent and equitable treatment among 
models and repeatability of the test procedure without making the test 
method unduly burdensome to conduct. In contrast, DOE is proposing to 
establish a physical test that consists of a 6-hour time period that 
allows accessory low power modes that automatically disable or adjust 
lighting, displays, or other low power mode systems to be enabled to 
account for accessory low power modes, and a separate calculation 
approach to account for refrigeration low power modes.
    Under this proposal, equipment with a low power mode would 
stabilize and operate under normal test procedure conditions, with all 
equipment and accessories energized as they would be when the equipment 
is capable of actively refrigerating and vending sealed beverages and 
as specified in section III.A.11, for the first 18 hours of the test 
period. In addition, unless specified otherwise by another portion of 
the test procedure, DOE is proposing that all low power mode control 
features that cannot be disabled, but can be adjusted, are to be 
adjusted such that the DEC is maximized, to best represent the likely 
performance of the equipment in the field in active vending mode. DOE 
is also proposing to adopt in its test procedure a modification to 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 requiring that any party performing the test 
procedure provide, if necessary, any physical stimuli or other input to 
the machine that may be needed to prevent automatic activation of low 
power modes during the vending state test period. Such stimuli could 
include creating movement near a unit being tested or pressing a 
selection button on the machine (without vending a test package). In 
the example above, in which the lights on a particular BVM dim after 
extended inactivity, the setting specified would be the one with the 
longest period of inactivity required before the lights would dim and 
periodic physical stimuli would be needed based on that period to 
prevent the lights from dimming. This would be most representative of 
the energy use of the equipment in active vending mode, when the 
equipment is capable of refrigerating and dispensing sealed beverages.
    For equipment with a low power mode, the low power mode may be 
enabled for no more than the final 6 hours of the test, or from hour 18 
to hour 24 of the 24-hour test. The 6-hour low power mode test period 
is intended to represent off hours between two periods of vending. The 
low power mode should account for both refrigeration system low power 
modes and accessory low power modes. While there is a wide range of 
types of low power mode controls and time periods, for which these 
controls are enabled, DOE believes a timeframe of 6 hours is a 
reasonable representation of average field use.
    To determine the measured DEC of a given BVM model equipped with a 
refrigeration low power mode, the energy use measured during the 24-
hour BVM test procedure, including the 6-hour accessory low power mode 
test period if applicable, will be reduced by 3 percent (or multiplied 
by 0.97).
    Under this proposal, the rating metric for all equipment would 
continue to be the energy use measured during the total 24-hour test 
period, including any calculated adjustments.
    Further, DOE proposes adopting a refrigeration low power mode 
validation procedure, to verify the existence and performance of the 
refrigeration low power mode on applicable BVM models. However, this 
refrigeration low power mode validation procedure will not be required 
for manufacturer certifications of compliance and will only be used to 
confirm the existence of

[[Page 46927]]

a refrigeration low power mode for the purposes of applying the 
refrigeration low power mode credit.
f. Equipment With Multiple Energy Use States
    DOE recognizes that its proposal to only recognize and account for 
three operating modes, that is, refrigeration system low power mode, 
accessory low power mode, and active vending mode, may not account for 
equipment with multiple energy use states. For example, some equipment 
may have controls that automatically adjust lighting levels during 
periods of lower vending activity, such as times during a facility's 
normal operating hours when few or no purchases are occurring, in 
addition to the more dramatic low power mode that is engaged when the 
facility is closed. This situation may be representative of field use 
in some situations, such as schools, where there may be times of 
concentrated activity during the day interspersed with periods of 
inactivity during which a partial low power mode is entered.
    DOE considered several approaches to account for these types of 
vending state low power modes. The first of these approaches is to 
permit an additional time period within the BVM test procedure during 
which lighting and control settings are permitted to be at 
manufacturer-recommended rather than maximum-energy-use settings and 
during which external inputs to prevent low power modes are not 
required. This could, for example, constitute 9 hours, or one-half of 
the remaining vending state test period after the 6-hour low power mode 
test period has been taken into account.
    The second of these approaches is to continue allowing a single low 
power mode test period in the DOE test procedure, and to also offer a 
calculation-based energy offset to those machines equipped with 
additional low power modes designed to operate during active vending 
periods when the beverage vending machine is capable of dispensing 
sealed beverages at the intended vending temperature (36  1 
[deg]F). This method would include calculation of the direct and 
indirect energy use associated with such vending state low power modes. 
To implement such a method, default assumptions would be necessary for 
the following variables:
    (1) The length of time vending state low power modes are employed,
    (2) the efficiency of the compressor,
    (3) the features generally controlled by a vending state low power 
mode, and
    (4) the portion of energy produced from the lights or other 
features that becomes heat in the case and increases the refrigeration 
load.
    After consideration, DOE has decided to propose the methodology in 
which equipment is prohibited from entering low power modes of any kind 
outside of the 6-hour low power mode test period. A wide range of 
energy management systems are available in beverage vending machines, 
and DOE believes that an 18-hour time period representative of an 
active, vending state at full power followed by a 6-hour low power mode 
test period provides a consistent methodology for testing that is 
applicable to the most BVM models and is reasonably representative of 
field use. DOE also notes that the low power modes designed to operate 
during vending periods, such as the lighting controls discussed above, 
can be enabled during the low power mode test period and accounted for 
in the same manner as any other low power mode operation. Only in the 
case where a beverage vending machine is equipped with both a more 
aggressive low power mode, designed for periods of facility closure, 
and a partial low power mode, designed for periods of inactivity during 
operating hours, will the operation of the two different low power 
modes not be taken into account independently.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal that units run at the most 
energy-consuming lighting and control settings, except as specified in 
section III.A.11, during the BVM test procedure, except for during the 
6-hour low power mode test period.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to require, as part of the 
test procedure, whatever stimuli are necessary to prevent automatic 
activation of low power modes during the vending state test procedure.
    DOE requests comment on whether its proposed method is 
representative of equipment that can use low power modes. DOE requests 
comment as to whether the proposed method reflects typical field use.
    DOE requests comment on whether 6 hours is an appropriate length of 
time for the low power mode test period.
    DOE requests information on the prevalence of non-cycling 
(variable-speed) compressors in the BVM industry.
    DOE requests comment on whether a credit equal to 3 percent of the 
measured DEC is reflective of the 6 hours of time in refrigeration low 
power mode.
    DOE requests comment on the refrigeration low power mode validation 
test and, particularly, if a one hour time period in which the 
instantaneous average of all standard test packages in the next-to-vend 
beverage position is maintained above 40 [deg]F is appropriate to 
verify the performance of refrigeration low power modes.
    DOE requests comment on whether a physical test method would be a 
more representative and accurate method to account for low power mode 
operation, including refrigeration low power mode.

IV. Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory 
flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities 
and considers alternative ways of reducing negative effects. Also, as 
required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR at 7990. DOE has 
made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this proposed rule, which would amend the test 
procedure for refrigerated beverage vending machines, under the 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and 
policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE tentatively concludes and 
certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not result in a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
factual basis for this certification is set forth below.
    For the BVM manufacturing industry, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which

[[Page 46928]]

defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the 
purpose of the statute. DOE used the SBA's size standards to determine 
whether any small entities would be required to comply with the rule. 
The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards 
are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
code and industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. BVM manufacturers are 
classified under NAICS 333318, ``Other Commercial and Service Industry 
Machinery Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees 
or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this 
category.
    DOE conducted a market survey of small business manufacturers of 
equipment covered by this rulemaking using all available public 
information. DOE's research involved the review of individual company 
Web sites and marketing research tools (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet 
reports, Manta) to create a list of companies that manufacture or sell 
beverage vending machines covered by this rulemaking. Using these 
sources, DOE identified seven manufacturers of beverage vending 
machines.
    DOE then reviewed these data to determine whether the entities met 
the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of beverage 
vending machines and screened out companies that do not offer equipment 
covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a ``small 
business,'' or are foreign owned and operated. Based on this review, 
DOE has identified five companies that would be considered small 
manufacturers, which represents 71 percent of the national BVM 
manufacturers.
    Table IV.1 stratifies the small businesses according to their 
number of employees. The smallest company has 2 employees and the 
largest company has 375 employees. The majority of the small businesses 
affected by this rulemaking (80 percent) have fewer than 200 employees. 
According to DOE's analysis, annual revenues associated with these 
small manufacturers were estimated at $107.3 million ($21.5 million 
average annual revenue per small manufacturer).

                             Table--IV.1 Small Business Size by Number of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Number of small     Percentage of        Cumulative
                  Number of employees                        businesses      small businesses      percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-25...................................................                  2              40.0%              40.0%
26-50..................................................                  0                0.0               40.0
51-75..................................................                  1               20.0               60.0
76-100.................................................                  0                0.0               60.0
101-200................................................                  1               20.0               80.0
201-300................................................                  0                0.0               80.0
301-400................................................                  1               20.0              100.0
401-500................................................                  0                0.0              100.0
501-1000...............................................                  0                0.0              100.0
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................                  5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NOPR proposes to update the industry test procedures 
referenced in the DOE test procedure for refrigerated beverage vending 
machines. In addition, DOE proposes to do the following:
    (1) Eliminate the requirement of a test performed at the 90 [deg]F 
ambient test condition;
    (2) establish a procedure to test combination vending machines;
    (3) clarify how to load the vending machine models when conducting 
the DOE test procedure;
    (4) specify the characteristics of the standard product;
    (5) clarify the next-to-vend temperature test condition;
    (6) establish a definition of ``fully cooled'' to more clearly 
differentiate Class A and Class B equipment;
    (7) specify the placement of thermocouples during testing;
    (8) add provisions to allow for refrigerated beverage vending 
machines that cannot achieve the currently prescribed 36 [deg]F average 
of next-to-vend beverage temperatures to be tested at the lowest 
application product temperature;
    (9) clarify the treatment of specific components and accessories in 
the test procedure; and
    (10) add a method to account for energy impacts of low power modes.
    All beverage vending machines covered by this proposed rule are 
currently required to be tested using the DOE test procedure to show 
compliance with established energy conservation standards. 
Manufacturers must use the DOE test procedure established in the 2006 
BVM test procedure final rule to demonstrate compliance with existing 
standards. That test procedure incorporates by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 and consists of one 24-hour 
test at standard rating conditions to determine DEC of covered beverage 
vending machines during a representative cycle of use. 71 FR 71340, 
71355 (Dec. 8, 2006). DOE estimates the cost of conducting the DOE test 
procedure as $5,000 per 24-hour test.
    Six of the amendments proposed in this test procedure NOPR will not 
change the testing burden for covered equipment. These include the 
amendments discussing the test procedure for combination vending 
machines, loading the vending machines when conducting the test 
procedure, specifying the characteristics of the standard test package, 
clarifying the next-to-vend temperature test condition, establishing a 
definition of ``fully cooled,'' and specifying the placement of 
thermocouples during testing. Specifically, the amendments regarding 
the next-to-vend temperature condition and the definition of ``fully 
cooled'' serve only to establish new definitions that will clarify 
DOE's existing test procedure requirements.
    This test procedure NOPR also proposes five amendments to the 
current DOE test procedure that may impact the test procedure burden. 
The expected incremental increases or decreases of costs for conducting 
the test procedure specific to each amendment proposed are discussed 
below.
    As discussed in section III.A.1, updating the referenced industry 
test procedures will not change the test procedure burden because it 
will not change the technical requirements of the test procedure.
    Eliminating testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition should 
substantially lessen the testing burden on manufacturers, as it 
decreases the

[[Page 46929]]

testing requirements from two tests, totaling approximately 120 hours 
duration, to one test of approximately 60 hours duration. DOE estimates 
the decrease in burden to be 10 hours of labor and 60 hours of facility 
use, which reduces the testing cost for each beverage vending machine 
unit by roughly $2,500, or half the cost of conducting the existing 
test procedure.
    Establishing a definition and associated verification test method 
for determining if a given BVM model is ``fully cooled'' is not 
required for product certification. However, if manufacturers were to 
elect to verify equipment classification using this optional procedure, 
the incremental burden associated with doing so would be the placement 
and recording of temperature for 4 additional standard test packages. 
DOE estimates this cost as $5 in material costs and 4 hours of an 
engineer's time for each standard test package, which can be amortized 
over the total number of tested models. In addition, DOE estimates the 
incremental cost of a thermocouple and associated length of 
thermocouple wire as $30 per standard test package. The incremental 
burden associated with placing these additional standard test packages 
is estimated as approximately 30 minutes of an engineer's time for each 
test. DOE estimated the cost of an engineer's time based on an average 
hourly salary of $41.44 for an engineer completing this task.\11\ 
Fringe benefits are estimated at 30 percent of total compensation, 
which brings the hourly costs to employers to $53.87.\12\ DOE does not 
believe the additional calculations will induce any incremental burden 
when performing the DOE test procedure. In total, this optional test 
would increase the average test burden by approximately $61.18 for each 
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Washington, DC. 
Available at www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#17-0000.
    \12\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. 
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--Management, Professional, 
and Related Employees. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establishing testing provisions at the lowest application product 
temperature affects only a very small percentage of equipment on the 
market, estimated to be less than 2 percent of shipments. Manufacturers 
who make equipment affected by this provision should experience a 
decrease in burden because they will no longer have to seek waivers for 
equipment that cannot maintain the 36 [deg]F  1 [deg]F 
average next-to-vend temperature for the duration of the test. For 
these manufacturers, DOE estimates a savings of 4 hours of labor for 
each BVM model, or $215.48 per model. DOE bases its estimate on the 
average hourly compensation for an engineer of $53.87, as previously 
estimated.
    Clarifying the treatment of various and components and accessories 
in the DOE test procedure should not alter the technical requirements 
of the DOE test procedure, since these additional specifications are 
meant to clarify existing requirements. However, DOE understands that 
the treatment of some of these accessories and components may have been 
inconsistent due to lack of clarity or misinterpretation of the DOE 
test procedure. Therefore, DOE is accounting for the incremental burden 
associated with properly configuring BVM models for testing in 
accordance with these new component specifications. The specific 
clarifications pertain to money-processing equipment, interior 
lighting, external displays and screens, anti-sweat heaters, condensate 
pan heaters and pumps, illuminated temperature displays, condenser 
filters, security covers, coated coils, general purpose outlets, and 
crankcase heaters and electric resistance heaters for cold weather. The 
adjustments to these accessories will require additional attention by 
test personnel. DOE estimates that it may require up to an additional 
hour to make all the applicable adjustments before testing begins. DOE 
estimates the incremental costs associated with adjusting accessories 
as $53.87 for each tested model, based on the assumption that it would 
take an additional hour of an engineer's time to attend to the tested 
model at the same labor rate assumed previously, $53.87 per hour.
    Amendments in this NOPR expanding the testing methodology to 
incorporate lighting and control settings to account for low power 
modes will require additional attention by test personnel. 
Specifically, DOE estimates it will require 1 hour to identify the 
appropriate time to initiate the low power mode test period and make 
any necessary adjustments to begin low power mode operation at that 
time. During the active vending mode test procedure, DOE estimates that 
it will take a maximum of 10 additional hours of an engineer's time to 
periodically monitor the operation of the tested unit and interact with 
the unit if necessary to ensure that the unit does not re-enter a low 
power mode state. DOE does not believe that multiplying the DEC by 0.97 
will increase the burden associated with conducting the DOE test 
procedure. However, DOE is also proposing an optional refrigeration low 
power mode verification test that manufacturers may elect to perform to 
ensure their equipment meets the requirements of a refrigeration low 
power mode, which would increase the test burden. DOE estimates that 
this test would require an additional 4 hours of test time, 2 hours to 
allow the refrigeration low power mode to initiate and maintain the 
adjusted refrigeration state and an assumed 2 hours to return to 36 
 1 [deg]F to verify that the BVM model can automatically 
return to vending conditions. DOE estimates the incremental costs 
associated with conducting the low power mode test as $592.57 for each 
model tested, based on the assumption that it would take an engineer an 
additional 11 hours to attend to the tested model at the same labor 
rate assumed previously, $53.87 per hour. If also accounting for the 
optional refrigeration low power mode verification test method, the 
incremental cost of the low power mode test procedure amendments 
increases to $808.05.
    All of the amendments and clarifications proposed in this NOPR, 
taken together, will result in an overall reduction in burden for 
manufacturers conducting the DOE test procedure due, primarily, to the 
removal of the requirement to test at the 90 [deg]F ambient condition. 
On average, the cost of testing covered beverage vending machines would 
be reduced by approximately $1,900 per model, or by 40 percent per 
manufacturer, not including the optional tests that are not required 
for certification of BVM models.
    DOE believes that the proposed test procedure amendments would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities due to decreased testing cost burden. Therefore, the 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. DOE 
will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual 
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    DOE requests comment on its certification that the proposed test 
procedure changes will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of refrigerated beverage vending machines must 
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy 
conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must 
test their

[[Page 46930]]

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

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    In this proposed rule, DOE proposes amendments to its test 
procedure that may be used to implement future energy conservation 
standards for refrigerated beverage vending machines. DOE has 
determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are 
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The rule is covered 
by Categorical Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that interpret or amend an 
existing rule without changing the environmental effect, as set forth 
in DOE's NEPA regulations in appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. 
This rule will not affect the quality or distribution of energy usage 
and therefore will not result in any environmental impacts. 
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental 
impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 
Pub.104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of 
Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and 
the private sector. For proposed regulatory actions likely to result in 
a rule that may cause expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 
governments in the aggregate or by the private sector of $100 million 
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting 
costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 
1532(a),(b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an 
effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, 
local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR at 12820. (This policy 
is also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.) DOE 
reviewed today's proposed rule pursuant to UMRA and its policy, and DOE 
determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, 
nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or 
more in any year. Accordingly, no further assessment or analysis is 
required under UMRA.

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

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

[[Page 46931]]

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed 
regulation, if promulgated as a final rule, would not result in any 
takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to 
the U.S. Constitution.

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to 
OIRA, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects 
for any proposed significant energy action. A ``significant energy 
action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is 
expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any 
successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect 
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by 
the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any 
proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed 
statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use 
should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to 
the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, 
and use.
    This regulatory action to amend the test procedure for refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machines is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order. 
Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a 
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it 
is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this rulemaking.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275), as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-70). 
Section 32 provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule 
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. (15 U.S.C. 788 section 32) In addition, section 32(c) 
requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of 
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the 
commercial or industry standards on competition.
    This proposed rule incorporates testing methods contained in the 
following commercial standard: ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, 
``Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Sealed 
Beverages.'' DOE has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude 
whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., whether they were developed in 
a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and 
review).
    As required by section 32(c) of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974 as amended, DOE will consult with the Attorney General and 
the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission about the impact on 
competition of requiring manufacturers to use the test methods 
contained in this standard prior to prescribing a final rule.

V. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in 
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If 
you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at (202) 586-2945 or [email protected].
    Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 
subject to advance security screening procedures. Any foreign national 
wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as 
possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary 
procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring laptops into 
the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. 
Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/73. Participants are 
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar 
software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), 
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to 
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 
of this NOPR. The request and advance copy of statements must be 
received at least one week before the public meeting and may be 
emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive 
requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone 
number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. After the public meeting and until the end of the 
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the 
proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting,

[[Page 46932]]

allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and 
encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues 
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a 
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the 
discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other 
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public 
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those 
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any 
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that 
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this NOPR. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript 
from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this NOPR.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for the test 
procedure for refrigerated beverage vending machines and provide docket 
number EE-2013-BT-TP-0045 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 
number 1904-AD07.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-
confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:

[[Page 46933]]

    (1) DOE requests comment on the proposal to update its test 
procedure to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010.
    (2) DOE requests comment on its proposal to update the referenced 
method of test for the measurement of refrigerated volume in its test 
procedure from section 5 of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 to Appendix C of ANSI/
ASHRAE 3.1-2010.
    (3) DOE requests comment on whether the methodology in Appendix C 
of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 for the measurement of refrigerated 
volume is more appropriate for beverage vending machines than the 
methodology outlined in section 4 of AHAM HRF-1-2008.
    (4) DOE requests comment on its proposal to eliminate the 
requirement to conduct testing at the 90 [deg]F ambient test condition.
    (5) DOE requests comment on the applicability of the existing test 
procedure, as clarified, to combination vending machines.
    (6) DOE proposes to add language to the DOE test procedure in 
Appendix A and Appendix B to clarify the loading requirements for 
covered BVM models.
    (7) DOE requests comment on the proposed clarification that the 
standard product shall be 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles, for BVM 
models that are capable of holding cans or bottles, respectively, 
filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 g/mL  0.1 g/mL 
at 36 [deg]F.
    (8) DOE requests comment on the need to maintain the flexibility of 
specifying the standard product as that specified by the manufacturer 
for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines that are 
not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles. DOE 
specifically requests examples of BVM models that might require this 
flexibility and what type of standard products they are tested with 
currently.
    (9) DOE requests comment on the sufficiency of the existing 
requirements regarding standard test packages. If the existing language 
is not sufficiently clear, DOE requests comments and recommendations 
regarding what additional clarifications might be necessary to ensure 
consistency and repeatability of test results.
    (10) DOE also requests comment on its proposed definition of 
``integrated average temperature'' for beverage vending machines.
    (11) DOE requests comment on whether the proposed definition for 
``integrated average temperature'' aligns with standard practice in 
industry, and whether any manufacturers have been maintaining the 36 
[deg]F ( 1 [deg]F) next-to-vend temperature constantly 
throughout the test used for DOE certification.
    (12) DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of ``fully 
cooled.'' DOE would appreciate comment as to whether the proposed 
definition aligns with the classifications of Class A and Class B 
equipment used in industry.
    (13) DOE requests comment on the proposed fully cooled validation 
test method. Specifically, DOE requests comment as to whether 10 [deg]F 
is an appropriate threshold to differentiate fully cooled equipment and 
any incremental burden on manufacturers associated with the optional 
test method for determining if a BVM model meets the definition of 
``fully cooled.''
    (14) DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt a lowest 
application product temperature provision for covered beverage vending 
machines that cannot be tested at the specified average next-to-vend 
temperature of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F).
    (15) DOE also requests comment on how the lowest application 
product temperature might be best determined for beverage vending 
machines and whether the lowest thermostat setting is a reasonable 
approach for most equipment. DOE requests comment on how to determine 
the lowest application product temperature for equipment without 
thermostats.
    (16) DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow covered 
equipment that cannot maintain the 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F) 
average next-to-vend temperature to be tested at the lowest application 
product temperature without requesting a DOE waiver.
    (17) DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify in Appendix A 
and B that internal lighting shall be operated in the maximum energy 
consuming state under the DOE test procedure.
    (18) DOE requests comment on whether the maximum energy consuming 
state for internal lighting is consistent with ``normal'' operation.
    (19) DOE requests comment on the range of equipment that should be 
addressed in this category of accessories and if the proposed 
terminology of customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens is 
sufficient to capture the variety of similar auxiliary energy-consuming 
accessories that might be installed on BVM models.
    (20) DOE requests comment on the treatment of external and integral 
customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens in Appendix A.
    (21) DOE requests comment on the proposed treatment of external and 
integral customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens in 
Appendix B. Specifically, DOE requests comment on whether disabling 
external devices and placing integral devices in standby mode or their 
lowest energy-consuming state is sufficiently representative of the 
energy use of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
    (22) DOE requests comment on the proposed definition of standby 
mode as the mode of operation in which the external, integral customer 
display signs, lighting, or digital screens is connected to mains 
power, does not produce the intended illumination, display, or 
interaction functionality, and can be switched into another mode 
automatically with only a remote user-generated or an internal signal.
    (23) For digital screens that also perform the vending or money-
processing function, DOE requests comment on the proposal to place 
these screens in their lowest energy-consuming state that still allows 
the money-processing feature to function.
    (24) DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify the treatment 
of accessories in the DOE test procedure.
    (25) DOE also requests comment on any other accessories that may 
require special treatment or exemption.
    (26) DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions of ``low 
power mode,'' ``refrigeration low power mode,'' and ``accessory low 
power mode.''
    (27) DOE requests comment on its proposal that units run at the 
most energy-consuming lighting and control settings, except as 
specified in section III.A.11, during the BVM test procedure, except 
for during the 6-hour low power mode test period.
    (28) DOE requests comment on its proposal to require, as part of 
the test procedure, whatever stimuli are necessary to prevent automatic 
activation of low power modes during the vending state test procedure.
    (29) DOE requests comment on its proposed method for accounting for 
equipment that can use low power modes. DOE requests comment as to 
whether this proposed method reflects typical field use.
    (30) DOE requests comment on whether 6 hours is an appropriate 
length of time for the low power mode test period.
    (31) DOE requests information on the prevalence of non-cycling 
(variable-speed) compressors in the BVM industry.
    (32) DOE requests comment on whether a credit equal to 3 percent of 
the measured DEC is reflective of the 6 hours of time in refrigeration 
low power mode.
    (33) DOE requests comment on the refrigeration low power mode 
validation

[[Page 46934]]

test and, particularly, if a one hour time period in which the 
instantaneous average of all standard test packages in the next-to-vend 
beverage position is maintained above 40 [deg]F is appropriate to 
verify the performance of refrigeration low power modes.
    (34) DOE requests comment on whether a physical test method would 
be a more representative and accurate method to account for low power 
mode operation, including refrigeration low-power mode.
    (35) DOE requests comment on its certification that the proposed 
test procedure changes will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 431

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 1, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE is proposing to 
amend parts 429 and 431 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 429.52 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.52  Refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following additional product-specific information: When 
using Appendix A of this part, the daily energy consumption in kilowatt 
hours per day (kWh/day), the refrigerated volume (V) in cubic feet 
(ft\3\), and the lowest application product temperature, if applicable. 
When using Appendix B, the daily energy consumption in kilowatt hours 
per day (kWh/day), the refrigerated volume (V) in cubic feet (ft\3\), 
whether testing was conducted using an accessory low power mode, 
whether testing was conducted using a refrigeration low power mode, 
and, if applicable, the lowest application product temperature.

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

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

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

0
4. Section 431.291 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.291  Scope.

    This subpart specifies test procedures and energy conservation 
standards for certain commercial refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines, pursuant to part A of Title III of the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309. 
The regulatory provisions of Sec. Sec.  430.33 and 430.34 and subparts 
D and E of 10 CFR part 430 of this chapter are applicable to 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
0
5. Section 431.292 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the 
definitions for ``Fully cooled,'' ``Integrated average temperature,'' 
and ``Lowest application product temperature,'' to read as follows:


Sec.  431.292  Definitions concerning refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines.

* * * * *
    Fully cooled means a condition in which the refrigeration system of 
a beverage vending machine cools product throughout the entire 
refrigerated volume of a machine instead of being directed at a 
fraction (or zone) of the refrigerated volume as measured by the 
average temperature of the standard test packages in the furthest from 
the next-to-vend positions being no more than 10 [deg]F above the 
integrated average temperature of the standard test packages.
    Integrated average temperature means the average temperature of all 
standard test package measurements in the next-to-vend beverage 
positions taken during the test, expressed in degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F).
    Lowest application product temperature means the lowest integrated 
average temperature a given basic model is capable of maintaining so as 
to comply with the temperature stabilization requirements specified in 
section 7.2.2.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.293).
* * * * *
0
6. Section 431.293 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and removing 
and reserving paragraph (b)(2).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  431.293  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1''), 
``Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Sealed 
Beverages,'' approved June 26, 2010, IBR approved for appendices A and 
B to subpart Q.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 431.294 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  431.294  Uniform test method for the measurement of energy 
consumption of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 
machines.

* * * * *
    (b) Testing and calculations. Determine the daily energy 
consumption of each covered refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 
vending machine by conducting the appropriate test procedure set forth 
in appendix A or B to this subpart.


Sec.  431.296  [Amended]

0
8. Section 431.296 is amended by removing the word ``maximum'' after 
``shall have a'' in the introductory text
0
9. Subpart Q of part 431 is amended by adding appendices A and B to 
read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the 
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Refrigerated Bottled or Canned 
Beverage Vending Machines

    Note:  After [date 30 days after publication of the final rule 
in the Federal Register] and prior to [date 180 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], 
manufacturers must make any representations with respect to the 
energy use or efficiency of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 
vending machines in accordance with the results of testing pursuant 
to this Appendix A or the procedures in 10 CFR 431.294 as it 
appeared

[[Page 46935]]

in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 
2014. After [date 180 days after date of publication of the final 
rule], manufacturers must make any representations with respect to 
energy use or efficiency in accordance with the results of testing 
pursuant to this appendix to demonstrate compliance with the energy 
conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.296, for which compliance was 
required as of August 31, 2012.

    1. General. Section 3, ``Definitons,'' and section 4, 
``Instruments,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  431.293) apply to this appendix. In cases where there is a 
conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes 
precedence over ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1.
    2. Test Procedure.
    2.1. Test Conditions.
    2.1.1. Equipment Loading. Configure refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines to hold the maximum number of standard 
products and place a standard test package in each next-to-vend 
position.
    2.1.1.1. Standard Products. The standard product shall be standard 
12-ounce aluminum beverage cans filled with a liquid with a density of 
1.0 grams per milliliter (g/mL)  0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For 
product storage racks that are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans, 
but are capable of holding 20-ounce bottles, the standard product shall 
be 20-ounce plastic bottles filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 
g/mL  0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For product storage racks that 
are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles, the 
standard product shall be the packaging and contents specified by the 
manufacturer as the standard product (i.e., the specific merchandise 
the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine is designed 
to vend).
    2.1.1.2. Standard Test Packages. A standard test package is a 
standard product, as specified in 2.1.1.1, altered to include a 
temperature-measuring instrument at its center of mass.
    2.1.2. Average Beverage Temperature. The integrated average 
temperature measured during the test must be within  1 
[deg]F of the average beverage temperature specified in section 6.1 of 
ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.293) (i.e., 
36 [deg]F) or the lowest application product temperature for models 
tested in accordance with paragraph 2.1.4 of this appendix.
    2.1.3. Ambient Test Conditions. Test the refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machine at the test condition of 75 [deg]F 
 2 [deg]F (23.9 [deg]C  1 [deg]C) ambient 
temperature and 45 percent  5 percent relative humidity.
    2.1.4. Lowest Application Product Temperature. If a refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine is not capable of 
maintaining an integrated average temperature of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F), the unit must be tested at the lowest application 
product temperature, as defined in Sec.  431.292. For refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machines equipped with a thermostat, 
the lowest application product temperature is the integrated average 
temperature achieved at the lowest thermostat setting.
    2.2. Determination of Daily Energy Consumption. Except as provided 
in this appendix, the test procedure for energy consumption of 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines shall be 
conducted in accordance with the methods specified in section 6, ``Test 
Conditions;'' and sections 7.1 through 7.2.3.2 under ``Test 
Procedures'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.293).
    2.2.1. Temperature Measurement. The integrated average temperature 
of next-to-vend beverages shall be measured in a standard test packages 
in each next-to-vend position for each selection, as specified in 
section 7.2.2.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.293). Do not run thermocouple wire and other measurement 
apparatus through the dispensing door; thermocouple wire and other 
measurement apparatus may be run through the gasket, provided that the 
gasket is fully compressed around the intruding wire and sealed to 
minimize air flow between the interior refrigerated volume and the 
ambient room air.
    2.2.2. Accessories. All standard components that would be used 
during normal operation of the model in the field shall be in place 
during testing and shall be set to the maximum energy-consuming setting 
if manually adjustable, except that the specific components and 
accessories listed in the subsequent sections shall be operated as 
stated. Instead of testing pursuant to section 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE 
32.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.293), provide, if 
necessary, any physical stimuli or other input to the machine needed to 
prevent automatic activation of energy management systems that can be 
adjusted by the machine operator during the test period. Automatic 
energy management systems that cannot be adjusted by the machine 
operator may be enabled, as specified by section 7.2.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 
32.1.
    2.2.2.1 Money-Processing Devices. Money-processing devices must be 
in place and functional during testing.
    2.2.2.2. Internal Lighting. All lighting that is contained within 
or is part of the internal physical boundary of the refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine, as established by the top, 
bottom, and side panels of the equipment, shall be placed in its 
maximum energy consuming state.
    2.2.2.3. External Customer Display Signs, Lighting, and Digital 
Screens. All external customer display signs, lighting, and digital 
screens that are independent from the refrigeration or vending 
performance of the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 
machine must be disconnected, disabled, or otherwise de-energized for 
the duration of testing. Customer display signs, lighting, and digital 
screens that are integrated into the BVM cabinet or controls such that 
they cannot be de-energized without disabling the refrigeration or 
vending functions of the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 
vending machine or modifying the circuitry must be placed in their 
lowest energy-consuming state. This includes television displays and 
other supplemental lighting that exists for advertising or display 
purposes. Digital displays that also serve a vending or money-
processing function must be placed in the lowest energy-consuming state 
that still allows the money-processing feature to function.
    2.2.2.4. Anti-sweat and Other Electric Resistance Heaters. Anti-
sweat and other electric resistance heaters must be operational during 
the entirety of the test procedure. Models with a user-selectable 
setting must have the heaters energized and set to the maximum usage 
position. Models featuring an automatic, non-user-adjustable controller 
that turns on or off based on environmental conditions must be 
operating in the automatic state.
    2.2.2.5. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps. All electric resistance 
condensate heaters and condensate pumps must be installed and 
operational during the test. Prior to the start of the stabilization 
period, as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.293), the condensate pan must be dry. Following the start of 
the stabilization period, allow any condensate moisture generated to 
accumulate in the pan. Do not manually add or remove water from the 
condensate pan at any time during the test.
    2.2.2.6. Illuminated Temperature Displays. All illuminated 
temperature displays shall be energized and operated

[[Page 46936]]

during the test as they would be during normal field operation.
    2.2.2.7. Condenser Filters. Remove any nonpermanent filters 
provided to prevent particulates from blocking a model's condenser 
coil.
    2.2.2.8. Security Covers. Remove any devices used to secure the 
model from theft or tampering.
    2.2.2.9. General Purpose Outlets. During the test, do not connect 
any external load to any general purpose outlets available on a unit.
    2.2.2.10. Crankcase Heaters and Other Electric Resistance Heaters 
for Cold Weather. Crankcase heaters and other electric resistance 
heaters for cold weather must be operational during the test. If a 
control system, such as a thermostat or electronic controller, is used 
to modulate the operation of the heater, it must be activated during 
the test.
    3. Determination of Refrigerated Volume and Vendible Capacity.
    3.1. Determine ``refrigerated volume'' of refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines in accordance with Appendix C, 
``Measurement of Volume,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.293). For combination vending machines, the 
``refrigerated volume'' is only that portion of the refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is actively 
refrigerated.
    3.2. Determine ``vendible capacity'' of refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines in accordance with the first paragraph 
of section 5, ``Vending Machine Capacity,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.293). For combination vending 
machines, the ``vendible capacity'' is the entire volume from which 
product may be vended, whether or not that volume is refrigerated.
    4. Verification of Fully Cooled Refrigerated Bottled or Canned 
Beverage Vending Machines.
    To determine if a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 
machine model is fully cooled, install standard test packages in the 
furthest from the next-to-vend positions. For a beverage vending 
machine with horizontal product rows, or spirals, this would require a 
standard test package at the back of the horizontal product rows in the 
four corners of the machine (e.g., bottom right, bottom left, top 
right, and top left). For a beverage vending machine with standard 
products configured in a vertical stack, this would require a standard 
test package at the top of each stack. Calculate the average 
temperature of all the standard test packages in the furthest from the 
next-to-vend position over the entire test period. Subtract this value 
from the integrated average temperature of standard test packages in 
the next-to-vend beverage positions. If the difference between these 
two values is less than or equal to 10 [deg]F, the tested unit is fully 
cooled.

Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the 
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Refrigerated Bottled or Canned 
Beverage Vending Machines

    Note: After [date 30 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register] and prior to [date 180 days after publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register], manufacturers must make 
any representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines in 
accordance with the results of testing pursuant to Appendix A or the 
procedures in 10 CFR 431.294 as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200 
to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2014. After [date 180 days 
after date of publication of the final rule], manufacturers must 
make any representations with respect to energy use or efficiency in 
accordance with the results of testing pursuant to Appendix A of 
this Subpart to demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation 
standards at 10 CFR 431.296, for which compliance was required as of 
August 31, 2012.

    Alternatively, manufacturers may make representations based on 
testing in accordance with this appendix prior to the compliance date 
of any amended energy conservation standards, provided that such 
representations demonstrate compliance with such amended energy 
conservation standards. Any representations made on or after the 
compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards, must be 
made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to Appendix B.
    1. General.
    1.1 In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the test 
procedure in this appendix takes precedence over ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.293).
    1.2. Definitions. Section 3, ``Definitions,'' and section 4, 
``Instruments,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.293) apply to this appendix.
    Accessory low power mode means a state in which a beverage vending 
machine's lighting and/or other energy-using systems, except the 
refrigeration system, are in low power mode. This may include, but is 
not limited to, dimming or turning off lights but does not include 
adjustment of the refrigeration system.
    Low power mode means a state in which a beverage vending machine's 
lighting, refrigeration, and/or other energy-using systems are 
automatically adjusted (without user intervention) such that they 
consume less energy than they consume in an active vending environment.
    Refrigeration low power mode means a state in which a beverage 
vending machine's refrigeration system is in low power mode. To qualify 
as low power mode, the average next-to-vend temperature must 
automatically (without user intervention) rise to at least 4 [deg]F 
above the integrated average temperature or lowest application product 
temperature, as applicable, and remain above this threshold for at 
least one hour.
    Standby mode means the mode of operation in which any external, 
integral customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens are 
connected to mains power; do not produce the intended illumination, 
display, or interaction functionality; and can be switched into another 
mode automatically with only a remote user-generated or an internal 
signal.
    2. Test Procedure.
    2.1. Test Conditions.
    2.1.1. Equipment Loading. Configure refrigerated bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines to hold the maximum number of standard 
products, and place a standard test package in each next-to-vend 
position. For combination vending machines, only load the refrigerated 
volume with standard test packages.
    2.1.1.1. Standard Products. The standard product shall be standard 
12-ounce aluminum beverage cans filled with a liquid with a density of 
1.0 grams per milliliter (g/mL)  0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For 
product storage racks that are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans, 
but are capable of holding 20-ounce bottles, the standard product shall 
be 20-ounce plastic bottles filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 
g/mL  0.1 g/mL at 36 [deg]F. For product storage racks that 
are not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles, the 
standard product shall be the packaging and contents specified by the 
manufacturer as the standard product (i.e., the specific merchandise 
the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine is designed 
to vend).
    2.1.1.2. Standard Test Packages. A standard test package is a 
standard product, as specified in 2.1.1.1, altered to include a 
temperature-measuring instrument at its center of mass.
    2.1.2. Average Beverage Temperature. The integrated average 
temperature measured during the vending state test period must be 
within  1 [deg]F of the

[[Page 46937]]

average beverage temperature specified in section 6.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 
32.1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.293) (i.e., 36 [deg]F) 
or the lowest application product temperature for models tested in 
accordance with paragraph 2.1.4 of this appendix).
    2.1.3. Ambient Test Conditions. Test the refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machine at the test condition of 75 [deg]F 
 2 [deg]F (23.9 [deg]C  1 [deg]C) ambient 
temperature and 45 percent  5 percent relative humidity.
    2.1.4. Lowest Application Product Temperature. If a refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine is not capable of 
maintaining an integrated average temperature of 36 [deg]F ( 1 [deg]F), the unit must be tested at the lowest application 
product temperature, as defined in Sec.  431.292. For refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machines equipped with a thermostat, 
the lowest application product temperature is the integrated average 
temperature achieved at the lowest thermostat setting.
    2.2. Determination of Daily Energy Consumption. Except as provided 
in this appendix, the test procedure for energy consumption of 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines shall be 
conducted in accordance with the test procedures specified in section 
6, ``Test Conditions;'' and sections 7.1 through 7.2.3.2 under ``Test 
Procedures,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, ``Methods of Testing for Rating 
Vending Machines Sealed Beverages'' (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.293). In section 7.2.3.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, the energy 
consumed during the test (E T) shall be the energy measured 
during the vending mode test period and accessory low power mode test 
period, as specified in section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, as applicable.
    2.2.1. Temperature Measurement. The integrated average temperature 
of next-to-vend beverages shall be measured in a standard test packages 
in each next-to-vend position for each selection, as specified in 
section 7.2.2.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.293). Do not run thermocouple wire and other measurement 
apparatus through the dispensing door; thermocouple wire and other 
measurement apparatus may be run through the gasket such that the 
gasket is fully compressed around the intruding wire and sealed to 
minimize air flow between the interior refrigerated volume and the 
ambient room air.
    2.2.2. Vending Mode Test Period. The vending mode test period 
begins immediately following the stabilization period and continues for 
18 hours for equipment with an accessory low power mode or for 24 hours 
for equipment without an accessory low power mode. For the vending mode 
test period, equipment that has energy-saving features that cannot be 
disabled shall be set to the most energy-consuming settings, except for 
as specified in paragraph 2.2.4. In addition, all energy management 
systems shall be disabled. Instead of testing pursuant to sections 
7.1.1(d) and 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  431.293), provide, if necessary, any physical stimuli or 
other input to the machine needed to prevent automatic activation of 
low power modes during the vending mode test period.
    2.2.3. Accessory Low Power Mode Test Period. For equipment with an 
accessory low power mode the accessory low power mode may be engaged 
for 6 hours, beginning 18 hours after the temperature stabilization 
requirements established in ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.293) have been met, and continuing until the 
end of the 24-hour test period. During the accessory low power mode 
test, operate the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 
machine with the lowest energy-consuming lighting and control settings 
that constitute an accessory low power mode. The specification and 
tolerances for average beverage temperature in section 6.1 of ANSI/
ASHRAE 32.1 still apply, and any refrigeration low power mode must not 
be engaged. Instead of testing pursuant to sections 7.1.1(d) and 
7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, provide, if necessary, any physical 
stimuli or other input to the machine needed to prevent automatic 
activation of refrigeration low power modes during the vending mode 
test period.
    2.2.3.1. Refrigeration Low Power Mode. For refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines with a refrigeration low power mode 
multiply the primary rated energy consumption per day (E T) 
by 0.97 to determine the daily energy consumption of the unit tested.
    2.2.4. Accessories. Unless specified otherwise in this appendix, 
all standard components that would be used during normal operation of 
the basic model in the field shall be in place during testing and shall 
be set to the maximum energy-consuming setting if manually adjustable. 
Components with controls that are permanently operational and cannot be 
adjusted by the machine operator shall be operated in their normal 
setting and consistent with the requirements of 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of this 
appendix. The specific components and accessories listed in the 
subsequent sections shall be operated as stated during the test, except 
when controlled as part of a low power mode during the low power mode 
test period.
    2.2.4.1 Money-Processing Devices. Money-processing devices must be 
in place and functional during testing.
    2.2.4.2. Internal Lighting. All lighting that is contained within 
or is part of the internal physical boundary of the refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine, as established by the top, 
bottom, and side panels of the equipment, shall be placed in its 
maximum energy consuming state.
    2.2.4.3. External Customer Display Signs, Lights, and Digital 
Screens. All external customer display signs, lighting, and digital 
screens that are independent from the refrigeration or vending 
performance of the refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 
machine must be disconnected, disabled, or otherwise de-energized for 
the duration of testing. Customer display signs, lighting, and digital 
screens that are integrated into the beverage vending machine cabinet 
or controls such that they cannot be de-energized without disabling the 
refrigeration or vending functions of the refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machine or modifying the circuitry must be 
placed in standby mode, if available, or their lowest energy-consuming 
state. This includes television displays and other supplemental 
lighting that exists for advertising or display purposes. Digital 
displays that also serve a vending or money-processing function must be 
placed in the lowest energy-consuming state that still allows the 
money-processing feature to function.
    2.2.4.4. Anti-sweat or Other Electric Resistance Heaters. Anti-
sweat or other electric resistance heaters must be operational during 
the entirety of the test procedure. Models with a user-selectable 
setting must have the heaters energized and set to the maximum usage 
position. Models featuring an automatic, non-user-adjustable controller 
that turns on or off based on environmental conditions must be 
operating in the automatic state.
    2.2.4.5. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps. All electric resistance 
condensate heaters and condensate pumps must be installed and 
operational during the test. Prior to the start of the stabilization 
period, as defined by ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.293), the condensate pan must be dry. Following the start of 
the stabilization period, allow any condensate moisture generated to

[[Page 46938]]

accumulate in the pan. Do not manually add or remove water from the 
condensate pan at any time during the test. Any automatic controls that 
initiate the operation of the condensate pan heater or pump based on 
water level or ambient conditions must be enabled and operated in the 
automatic setting.
    2.2.4.6. Illuminated Temperature Displays. All illuminated 
temperature displays shall be energized and operated during the test as 
they would be during normal field operation.
    2.2.4.7. Condenser Filters. Remove any nonpermanent filters 
provided to prevent particulates from blocking a model's condenser 
coil.
    2.2.4.8. Security Covers. Remove any devices used to secure the 
model from theft or tampering.
    2.2.4.9. General Purpose Outlets. During the test, do not connect 
any external load to any general purpose outlets available on a unit.
    2.2.4.10. Crankcase Heaters and Other Electric Resistance Heaters 
for Cold Weather. Crankcase heaters and other electric resistance 
heaters for cold weather must be operational during the test. If a 
control system, such as a thermostat or electronic controller, is used 
to modulate the operation of the heater, it must be activated during 
the test.
    3. Determination of Refrigeration Volume and Vendible Capacity.
    3.1. Determine ``refrigerated volume'' of refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines in accordance with Appendix C, 
``Measurement of Volume,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.293). For combination vending machines, the 
``refrigerated volume'' is only that portion of the refrigerated 
bottled or canned beverage vending machine that is actively 
refrigerated.
    3.2. Determine ``vendible capacity'' of refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machines in accordance with the first paragraph 
of section 5, ``Vending Machine Capacity,'' of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.293). For combination vending 
machines, the ``vendible capacity'' is the entire volume from which 
product may be vended, whether or not that volume is actively 
refrigerated.
    4. Verification Tests.
    These test methods are not required for the certification of 
refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
    4.1 Verification of Fully Cooled Refrigerated Bottled or Canned 
Beverage Vending Machines. To determine if a refrigerated bottled or 
canned beverage vending machine model is fully cooled, install standard 
test packages in the furthest from the next-to-vend positions. For a 
beverage vending machine with horizontal product rows, or spirals, this 
would require a standard test package at the back of the horizontal 
product rows in the four corners of the machine (e.g., bottom right, 
bottom left, top right, and top left). For a beverage vending machines 
with standard products configured in a vertical stack, this would 
require a standard test package at the top of each stack. Calculate the 
average temperature of all the standard test packages in the furthest 
from the next-to-vend position over the entire test period and subtract 
this value from the integrated average temperature of standard test 
packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions. If the difference 
between these two values is less than or equal to 10 [deg]F, the tested 
unit is fully cooled.
    4.2 Refrigeration Low Power Mode Validation Test Method. To verify 
the existence of a refrigeration low power mode initiate the 
refrigeration low power mode after completion of the 6-hour low power 
mode test period and record the average temperature of the standard 
test packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions for the next 2 
hours. Over the course of this 2-hour period, the instantaneous average 
next-to-vend beverage temperatures, that is the spatial average of all 
next-to-vend beverages, must increase above 40 [deg]F and remain above 
40 [deg]F for at least 1 hour. At the conclusion of the 2-hour 
refrigeration low power mode verification test period, the refrigerated 
beverage vending machine must return to 36  1 [deg]F 
automatically without direct physical intervention. Record the average 
temperature of the standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage 
positions until the average temperature returns to at least 37 [deg]F.3

[FR Doc. 2014-18801 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P