[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18428-18445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7728]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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


Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment: Test Procedures for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to revise its 
test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers (ACIM) established 
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NOPR) proposes to update the incorporation by reference of 
industry test procedures to the most current published versions. The 
current DOE test procedure applies to automatic commercial ice makers 
that produce cube type ice. This NOPR proposes to expand coverage of 
the test procedure to all batch type and continuous type ice makers 
with capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. A 
batch type ice maker is defined as an ice maker with alternate freezing 
and harvesting periods, including machines that produce cube type ice, 
tube type ice, and fragmented ice. A continuous type ice maker is 
defined as an ice maker that continually freezes and harvests ice at 
the same time. Continuous type ice makers primarily produce flake or 
nugget ice. DOE also proposes amendments to standardize test results 
based on ice quality for continuous type ice makers, clarify the test 
methods and reporting requirements for automatic ice makers designed to 
be connected to a remote compressor rack, and provide test methods for 
modulating capacity ice makers. Furthermore, DOE proposes to 
discontinue the use of a clarified energy use equation.
    The test procedure applies to automatic commercial ice makers as 
defined in section 136 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Use of any 
amended test procedures will be required on the compliance date of any 
standards developed in the associated energy conservation standard 
rulemaking. This notice announces a public meeting to discuss and 
receive comments on the proposed test procedure amendments.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting in Washington, DC on April 29, 
2011 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Additionally, DOE plans to make the public 
meeting available via webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' 
of this NOPR for webinar registration information, participant 
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to 
webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and other information regarding 
this NOPR before or after the public meeting, but no later than June 3, 
2011. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at (202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals planning to 
participate in the public meeting 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. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 to initiate the necessary procedures.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for test procedures 
for automatic commercial ice makers, and provide docket number EERE-
2010-BT-TP-0036 or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1904-AC38. 
Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97d6d4dedabaa5a7a6a7bac3c7baa7a7a4a1d7f2f2b9f3f8f2b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="befffdf7f3938c8e8f8e93eaee938e8e8d88fedbdb90dad1db90d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>. Include the docket 
number EERE-2010-BT-TP-0036 and/or RIN 1904-AC38 in the subject line of 
the message.
    <bullet> Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all 
items on CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    <bullet> 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 CD. It is not necessary to include 
printed copies.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e9aa819b809a9d80878cb6a3c7b6a2908487a986848bc78c8699c78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75361d071c06011c1b102a3f5b2a3e0c181b351a18175b101a055b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting 
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index 
may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from 
public disclosure. The regulations.gov web page will contain 
instructions on how to access all documents in the docket, including 
public comments.
    The rulemaking web page can be found at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/automatic_ice_making_equipment.html. This web page contains a link 
to the docket for this notice on regulations.gov.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V, ``Public 
Participation,'' of this document.
    For further information on how to submit or review public comments, 
participate in the public meeting, or view hard copies of the docket in 
the Resource Room, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or e-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#de9cacbbb0babff09bbaa9bfacbaad9ebbbbf0bab1bbf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81c3f3e4efe5e0afc4e5f6e0f3e5f2c1e4e4afe5eee4afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2192, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#40032821322c25331f0c2c252e3a210025256e242f256e272f36"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="edae858c9f81889eb2a1818883978cad8888c3898288c38a829b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    In the Office of General Counsel contact Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 287-6307, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2564574c0b64495148444b654d540b414a400b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5716253e79163b233a3639173f267933383279303821">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Legal Authority
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Test Procedure Amendments
    B. Association With Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions

[[Page 18429]]

    1. Update References to Industry Standards to Most Current 
Versions
    2. Expand Capacity Range to Larger Capacity Equipment
    3. Include Test Methods for Continuous Type Ice Makers
    a. Standardize Ice Quality for Continuous Type Ice Makers
    4. Measure Potable Water Used To Produce Ice
    a. Test Batch Type Ice Makers at the Highest Purge Setting
    5. Provide a Test Method for Measuring Storage Bin Effectiveness
    6. Provide a Test Method for Remote Condensing Automatic 
Commercial Ice Makers
    7. Provide a Test Method for Modulating Capacity Automatic 
Commercial Ice Makers
    8. Discontinue Use of a Clarified Energy Rate Calculation
    B. Response to Additional Comments Raised by Interested Parties 
at the Framework Document Public Meeting
    1. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines
    2. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy Use
    3. Standardization of Water Hardness for Measurement of Potable 
Water Used in Making Ice
IV. Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    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 the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    M. 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 Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Background and Legal Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA'' or 
``the Act,'' Pub. L. 94-163), as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 (EPACT 2005, Pub. L. 109-58), establishes an energy conservation 
program for certain commercial and industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 
6311-6317) This program sets Federal energy conservation standards, 
test procedures, and labeling requirements.
    EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards for automatic 
commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities 
between 50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per 24-hour period. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(d)(1)) EPCA also requires the Secretary of Energy to review these 
standards and determine, by January 1, 2015, whether amending the 
applicable standards is technically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)) DOE is currently undertaking a 
standards rulemaking, concurrent to this test procedure rulemaking, to 
determine if amended standards are technically feasible and 
economically justified for automatic commercial ice makers covered by 
the standards set in EPACT 2005 (docket number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037). 
In the energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE is also proposing, 
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2), standards for continuous type ice makers, 
tube type ice makers, and equipment with capacities up to 4,000 pounds 
of ice per 24 hours.
    Manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers must use 
prescribed test procedures to measure energy and, if applicable, water 
use to certify to DOE that equipment complies with the energy 
conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)(A)) Manufacturers must also 
use prescribed test procedures for labeling or making representations 
about the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b)) Under 42 
U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must 
follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered 
products. EPCA provides in relevant part that ``test procedures 
prescribed in accordance with this section shall be reasonably designed 
to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 
and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial equipment (or 
class thereof) during a representative average use cycle (as determined 
by the Secretary), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.'' (42 
U.S.C. 6314(2))
    EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, prescribes that the test procedure 
for automatic commercial ice makers shall be the Air-Conditioning and 
Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 810-2003, ``Performance Rating 
of Automatic Commercial Ice-Makers.'' (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(A)) 
Pursuant to that section, on December 8, 2006, DOE published a final 
rule (the 2006 test procedure final rule) that adopted the test 
procedure specified in ARI Standard 810-2003, with a revised method for 
calculating energy use. DOE adopted a clarified energy use rate 
equation to specify that the energy use be calculated using the entire 
mass of ice produced during the testing period, normalized to 100 
pounds of ice produced. 71 FR 71340, 71350 (Dec. 8, 2006). ARI Standard 
810-2003 references the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 29-1988 (Reaffirmed 2005) (ASHRAE Standard 
29-1988 (RA 2005)), ``Method of Testing Automatic Ice Makers,'' as the 
method of test. The current test procedures for automatic commercial 
ice makers appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart H, section 134, ``Uniform 
test method for the measurement of energy consumption and water 
consumption of automatic commercial ice makers.''
    Since the publication of the 2006 test procedure final rule, ARI 
merged with the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) to form 
the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) and 
updated its test procedure to reflect changes in the industry. The new 
test procedure, AHRI Standard 810-2007, amends the previous test 
procedure, ARI Standard 810-2003, to:
    1. Expand the capacity range of covered equipment to between 50 and 
4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours at standard rating conditions
    2. Provide definitions and specific test procedures for batch type 
and continuous type ice makers; and
    3. Provide a definition for ice hardness factor, which is a measure 
of ice quality or the percentage of liquid water content in the ice 
product of continuous type ice machines.
    The revised AHRI Standard 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 
adopt new definitions for a ``batch type ice maker'' (also referred to 
as a cube type ice maker) and a ``continuous type ice maker.'' A batch 
type ice maker is defined as an ice maker that has alternate freezing 
and harvesting periods, including machines that produce cube type ice, 
tube type ice, and fragmented ice. The test procedures further clarify 
that in this definition the word ``cube'' does not refer to the 
specific shape or size of ice produced. A continuous type ice maker is 
defined as an ice maker that continually freezes and harvests ice at 
the same time. Continuous type ice makers primarily produce flake and 
nugget ice.
    EPCA, as amended, provides that if ARI Standard 810-2003 is 
revised, the Secretary shall amend the DOE test procedure as necessary 
to be consistent with the amended ARI Standard unless the Secretary 
determines, by rule, that to do so would not meet the requirements for 
test procedures set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(B)) Because 
ARI

[[Page 18430]]

Standard 810 has been updated from the 2003 version, DOE must amend the 
DOE test procedure to reflect these updates, unless doing so would not 
meet the definition of a test procedure, as set forth in section 
343(a)(7) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(B)(i))
    The commercial test procedure being considered in this rulemaking, 
AHRI Standard 810-2007, references the previous ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 
(RA 2005). However, in 2009, ASHRAE also updated their test procedure 
to include provisions for measuring the performance of batch type and 
continuous type ice makers. The DOE test procedure also references the 
ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005).
    DOE has preliminarily determined that the updated versions are 
consistent with the test procedure currently used in industry, expand 
coverage to additional products that are being proposed in the ongoing 
standard rulemaking, including continuous type and larger capacity ice 
makers with capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per day, and would 
meet the above-referenced requirements for a test procedure set forth 
in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(B)) As such, DOE proposes to incorporate 
by reference AHRI Standard 810-2007 as the DOE test procedure, with 
ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 as the referenced method of test.
    DOE is revising the automatic commercial ice maker test procedure 
in part to correspond with changes being proposed in the concurrent 
standard rulemaking process on automatic commercial ice makers (docket 
number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037). The energy conservation standards 
rulemaking that DOE is proposing under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2) would 
establish energy conservation standards for continuous type ice makers 
and equipment with capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours.
    In addition to updating the references to AHRI 810-2007 and ASHRAE 
Standard 29-2009, DOE is proposing revisions to the DOE test procedure 
that:
    1. Expand the scope of the test procedure to include equipment with 
capacities from 50 to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours;
    2. Provide test methods for continuous type ice makers;
    3. Standardize the measurement of energy and water use for 
continuous type ice makers with respect to ice quality;
    4. Clarify the test method and reporting requirements for remote 
condensing automatic commercial ice makers designed for connection to 
compressor racks;
    5. Specify an optional test method for modulating capacity ice 
makers; and
    6. Discontinue the use of a clarified energy use rate calculation 
and instead calculate energy use per 100 pounds of ice as specified in 
ASHRAE Standard 29-2009.
    DOE believes that these amendments will result in a test procedure 
that more accurately reflects the energy and water use of automatic 
commercial ice makers and more fully complies with the requirements of 
EPCA. This test procedure rulemaking also fulfills DOE's obligation 
under EPCA to review the test procedure for automatic commercial ice 
makers every 7 years. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A))
    EPCA requires that if DOE determines that a test procedure 
amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and 
offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on 
them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b))

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

    This NOPR proposes to update the test procedure references to the 
current industry-accepted test procedures, expand the scope to cover 
all continuous and batch type equipment with capacities from 50 to 
4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours, provide a test method to normalize 
energy with respect to ice quality for continuous type ice makers, 
clarify the test method and reporting requirements for remote 
condensing ice makers that are designed to be used with a remote 
compressor rack, provide an optional test method for modulating 
capacity ice makers, and discontinue the use of a clarified energy use 
rate calculation. In the absence of the clarified energy rate equation 
published by DOE as part of the previous DOE test procedure (71 FR 
71340, 71350 (Dec. 8, 2006)), DOE will use the method prescribed in 
ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 to calculate energy use per 100 pounds of ice 
produced. This method is discussed in more detail in section III.A.7 of 
this document. DOE anticipates publishing the final rule amending the 
ACIM test procedures prior to issuing the NOPR for the ACIM energy 
conservation standard.

B. Association With Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking

    DOE is proposing these revisions to the DOE test procedure be 
consistent with the scope of coverage of the concurrent energy 
conservation standard rulemaking for automatic commercial ice makers 
(docket number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037). If the scope of coverage changes 
in later stages of the automatic commercial ice maker energy 
conservation standards rulemaking, DOE may add provisions, as 
necessary, to the test procedure so that it is consistent with the 
final scope of coverage of any new or amended standards for automatic 
commercial ice makers.
    EPCA, as amended, requires that any amended test procedures for 
automatic commercial ice makers shall comply with section 6293(e) of 
the same title (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(C)), which in turn prescribes that 
if any rulemaking amends a test procedure, DOE must determine ``to what 
extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured 
energy efficiency * * * of any covered product as determined under the 
existing test procedure.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) Further, if DOE 
determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured 
efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy 
conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
    In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e), DOE has analyzed the amended 
test procedure, as proposed in today's NOPR, to determine if it will 
affect the measured energy efficiency of a covered product. When the 
revised ACIM test procedure final rule is promulgated, the energy 
conservation standards set in EPACT 2005 for automatic commercial ice 
makers that produce cube type ice of capacities between 50 and 2,500 
pounds of ice per 24 hours will be in effect.
    DOE believes that the only proposed test procedure amendments 
applicable to automatic commercial ice makers covered under EPACT 2005 
standards are those that update the referenced industry test procedures 
to their most current versions, clarify the test method and reporting 
requirements for automatic commercial ice makers designed to be 
connected to a remote compressor rack, and discontinue the use of a 
clarified energy use rate equation. DOE believes that these amendments 
would not significantly affect the measured energy or water use of 
equipment for which standards are currently in place. The updated 
industry test procedures, AHRI 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, 
only expand the test procedure to continuous type ice makers and ice 
makers with capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours; they do 
not affect the test procedure for ice makers that make cube type ice 
with capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per 24 hours. See 
section III.A.1 for more information. The amendments that clarify the 
test method and reporting

[[Page 18431]]

requirements for automatic commercial ice makers designed to be 
connected to a remote compressor rack and discontinue the use of the 
clarified energy use rate equation are primarily editorial in nature 
and do not fundamentally affect the way automatic commercial ice makers 
are tested. These amendments are described in more detail in sections 
III.A.5 and III.A.7, respectively.
    The remaining proposed test procedure amendments are only 
applicable to types of automatic commercial ice makers for which energy 
conservation standards do not currently exist. In the concurrent ACIM 
energy conservation standard rulemaking, DOE is proposing to establish 
energy conservation standards for batch type and continuous type ice 
makers with capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. This 
includes new energy conservation standards for batch type ice makers 
that produce cube type ice with capacities between 2,500 and 4,000 
pounds of ice per 24 hours, batch type ice makers that produce other 
than cube type ice with capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice 
per 24 hours, and continuous type ice makers with capacities between 50 
and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. However, these standards will not 
be promulgated until after the ACIM test procedure final rule is 
issued. Because there currently are no standards for the aforementioned 
types of ice makers, section 6293(e) does not apply to test procedure 
amendments that affect only those equipment types.
    Because DOE does not believe the updated test procedure will alter 
the measured energy or water consumption of automatic commercial ice 
makers that are covered by existing DOE energy conservation standards, 
DOE proposes that use of the amendments be required upon the effective 
date of any test procedure final rule, 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register.
    DOE requests comment on its determination that the proposed test 
procedure amendments will not affect the measured energy or water 
consumption of automatic commercial ice makers that are currently 
covered under energy conservation standards. DOE also requests comment 
on the proposal that the use of the amended test procedure be required 
upon the effective date of any test procedure final rule, 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register.

III. Discussion

    As part of the current rulemaking on the energy conservation 
standard for commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE held a public 
meeting on December 16, 2011 to present its Framework Document (http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/acim_framework_2010_11_04.pdf) and to receive comments from 
interested parties. DOE considered the comments received as a result of 
the Framework Document public meeting and incorporated into this 
document certain recommendations, where appropriate. Responses to these 
comments appear throughout the discussion of test procedure amendments. 
The test procedure amendments DOE is proposing in this rulemaking were 
summarized in section II.A and are discussed in further detail in the 
following sections. Responses to comments that are not specifically 
addressed in the discussion of test procedure revisions appear in 
section III.B, which provides responses to comments in the following 
subject areas:

1. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines
2. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy Use
3. Measurement of Storage Bin Effectiveness
4. Establishment of a Metric for Potable Water Used in Making Ice
5. Standardization of Water Hardness for Measurement of Potable Water 
Used in Making Ice
6. Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers at the Highest Purge Setting

A. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions

    Today's proposed rule contains the following proposed changes to 
the test procedure in 10 CFR 431, subpart H.
1. Update References to Industry Standards to Most Current Versions
    The current DOE test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers, 
established in the 2006 test procedure final rule, adopts ARI Standard 
810-2003 as the test procedure used to measure the energy consumption 
of a piece of equipment to establish compliance with energy 
conservation standards set in EPACT 2005. 71 FR 71340, 71350 (Dec. 8, 
2006). The DOE test procedure also references ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 
(RA 2005). AHRI (previously ARI) Standard 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 
29-2009 are designed to be used together to test automatic commercial 
ice makers. AHRI Standard 810-2007 specifies the standard rating 
conditions and provides relevant definitions of equipment, scope, and 
calculated or measured values. ASHRAE Standard 29 specifies how to 
conduct the test procedure, including the technical requirements and 
calculations. Since the publication of the 2006 test procedure final 
rule, AHRI has released an updated version of the test procedure, AHRI 
Standard 810-2007. ASHRAE subsequently updated their test procedure in 
2009 to reflect the same changes. AHRI Standard 810-2007 and ASHRAE 
Standard 29-2009 amend the previous test procedures by expanding the 
capacity range to 4,000 pounds per day and providing for the testing of 
continuous type ice makers. In adopting the revised AHRI Standard 810-
2007 and referencing ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, DOE is proposing to 
incorporate all the test procedure changes incorporated in the updated 
versions. At the ACIM Framework Document public meeting, AHRI stated 
its support for this proposal. (AHRI, No. 0016 at p. 139\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the following discussion, comments will be presented 
along with a notation in the form ``AHRI, No. 0016 at p. 139,'' 
which identifies a written comment DOE received and included in the 
docket of this rulemaking. DOE refers to comments based on when the 
comment was submitted in the rulemaking process. This particular 
notation refers to a comment (1) by AHRI, (2) in document number 
0016 of the docket (available at regulations.gov), and (3) appearing 
on page 139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on updating the referenced industry test 
procedures to the most current versions.
    In addition, DOE proposes to make additional changes that expand 
the capacity range to larger capacity equipment, up to 4,000 pounds of 
ice per 24 hours, and include additional test methods for continuous 
type ice makers. These two changes are discussed in detail in the 
following two sections.
2. Expand Capacity Range to Larger Capacity Equipment
    AHRI Standard 810-2007 establishes a capacity range of 50 to 4,000 
pounds of ice per 24 hours at standard rating conditions. The previous 
standard, ARI Standard 810-2003, referenced by the current DOE test 
procedure, is limited to a capacity range of 50 to 2,500 pounds of ice 
per 24 hours. AHRI expanded the capacity range due to changes in the 
products offered by manufacturers. Specifically, some manufacturers 
offer larger capacity units that exceed the capacity range of the 
previous test procedure. AHRI's expansion of the capacity range does 
not affect the way ice makers are tested; it only provides for the same 
test procedure to be applied to larger capacity ice makers.
    At the ACIM Framework Document public meeting, some interested 
parties commented that 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours was a natural 
ceiling for commercial equipment. (AHRI, No. 0016 at pp. 65 and 144; 
Manitowoc Ice,

[[Page 18432]]

No. 0016 at p. 66; Scotsman, No. 0016 at p. 68) Stakeholders also 
commented that there did not appear to be any issues in applying the 
test procedure to larger capacity equipment, except perhaps for 
providing enough conditioned air in the environmental chamber to test 
these machines. (Scotsman, No. 0016 at pp. 69 and 144)
    While no manufacturers of equipment with capacities exceeding 4,000 
pounds of ice per 24 hours attended the public meeting, Vogt, the 
primary manufacturer of equipment with capacities larger than 4,000 
pounds per 24 hours, submitted a written comment suggesting that DOE 
expand the capacity limit to include equipment that produces up to 
10,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. Vogt further commented that this 
leads consumers to believe that larger capacity machines are not as 
efficient, when in fact they are more efficient, and prevents larger 
capacity equipment from participating in rebate programs or other 
energy efficiency programs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Framework comments submitted by Vogt Ice to Detlef 
Westphalen, Navigant Consulting Inc, February 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In analyzing the current ice maker market, DOE has found that 
approximately 99 percent of automatic commercial ice makers have 
capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. However, 
DOE has identified a few automatic commercial ice makers with 
capacities that exceed 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours that are 
currently offered for sale in the United States. Further, DOE found 
that many of these larger capacity machines are marketed as commercial 
products for use in food sales, schools, and other commercial spaces 
and fall within the EPCA definition of an automatic commercial ice 
maker.

     (42 U.S.C. 6311(19))DOE has analyzed the AHRI 810-2007 and ASHRAE 
Standard 29-2009 test procedure methods and believes that there are no 
technical issues with applying these methods to larger capacity 
equipment, up to 10,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. In fact, this is 
how larger capacity ice makers are currently tested by manufacturers to 
voluntarily determine their energy performance. DOE understands that 
larger capacity ice makers require a larger environmental chamber to 
accommodate their increased physical size and the additional 
conditioned air required to maintain the test room at ambient 
conditions. In addition, there may be other issues related to marketing 
or burden when testing ice makers with capacities between 4,000 and 
10,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours.
    In weighing the various factors for and against establishing a test 
procedure covering ice makers with capacities between 4,000 and 10,000 
pounds per 24 hours, DOE has determined that such test procedures would 
not be warranted at this time. Primarily, DOE does not believe that the 
increased burden association with this significant expansion in scope 
is justified due to the small market share of equipment with capacities 
greater than 4,000 pounds per 24 hours. Therefore, DOE proposes to 
expand the capacity range of the DOE test procedure to only include 
larger capacity automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates 
between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours.
    DOE requests comment on expanding the capacity range from 50 to 
2,500 pounds of ice per 24 hours to 50 to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 
hours.
3. Include Test Methods for Continuous Type Ice Makers
    During the public comment period for the 2006 test procedure 
proposed rule, which adopted test procedures for the EPACT 2005 ACIM 
standards, interested parties requested that additional product classes 
be considered. Specifically, Howe Corporation requested that DOE test 
procedures and requirements be amended and expanded to apply a revised 
ARI Standard 810 to all automatic ice makers, regardless of ice-cube 
type. (docket number EE-RM/TP-05-500, Howe, No. 6 at pp. 3-4) \3\ At 
that time, DOE stated that the test procedure for automatic commercial 
ice makers was adopted for two reasons: (1) To adopt methods for 
testing equipment for which EPACT 2005 set energy conservation 
standards and (2) to comply with the requirement that the test 
procedure for such ice makers be ARI Standard 810-2003, which only 
applies to the equipment that produces cube type ice. DOE added that 
expanding the energy conservation standard for automatic commercial ice 
makers to include equipment that produces ice other than cube type ice 
was outside the scope of that rulemaking proceeding. However, DOE noted 
that it is authorized to adopt standards for such other commercial ice 
makers (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)), and that if and when DOE sought to adopt 
such standards, it intended to consider continuous type ice makers that 
produce flake type ice. 71 FR 71340, 71351 (Dec. 8, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This notation refers to a comment that was submitted by Howe 
Corporation and is recorded in docket number EE-RM/TP-05-500 as 
comment number 6, and (2) a passage that appears on pages 3 and 4 of 
that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI Standard 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 have been 
amended to allow for the testing of continuous type ice makers. The 
revised AHRI Standard 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 adopt 
definitions for a ``batch type ice maker'' (also referred to as a cube 
type ice maker) and a ``continuous type ice maker.'' A batch type ice 
maker is defined as an ice maker that has alternate freezing and 
harvesting periods. The standard further clarifies that in this 
definition the word ``cube'' does not refer to the specific shape or 
size of ice produced. A continuous type ice maker is defined as an ice 
maker that continually freezes and harvests ice at the same time. 
Continuous type ice makers primarily produce flake and nugget ice.
    In addition, AHRI Standard 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 
provide explicit test methods for both batch and continuous type ice 
makers. The previous ARI Standard 810-2003 and ASHRAE Standard 29-
1988(RA 2005), as referenced in the current DOE test procedure, do not 
include a method for testing continuous type ice makers. DOE intends to 
adopt AHRI Standard 810-2007 as the referenced DOE test procedure, 
including referencing ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 as the method of test. 
This would expand the current DOE test procedure to provide a method 
for testing continuous type ice makers, in addition to batch type ice 
makers. The test procedure provisions for testing continuous type ice 
makers would be used in conjunction with standards for automatic 
commercial ice makers that produce flake or nugget ice. These standards 
are being developed in the ongoing ACIM energy conservation standard 
rulemaking.
    DOE requests comment on providing test methods for continuous type 
ice makers.
4. Standardize Ice Quality for Continuous Type Ice Makers
    Continuous type ice makers typically produce ice that is not 
completely frozen. This means that there is some liquid water content 
in the total mass of ice product produced by continuous type ice 
makers. The specific liquid water content can be quantified in terms of 
ice hardness or ice quality and is usually represented in terms of 
percent of completely frozen ice present in the total ice product. Ice 
quality can vary significantly across different machines. DOE 
understands that the percentage of liquid water in the product of 
continuous ice makers is directly related to the measured energy 
consumption of

[[Page 18433]]

these machines. To provide comparability and repeatability of results, 
DOE proposes to standardize the energy consumption of continuous ice 
makers to a total mass of ice that is 32 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) 
with no liquid water content. At the December 16, 2010 Framework 
Document public meeting, Scotsman agreed that there may be some reason 
to standardize ice quality to 32 [deg]F with no liquid water content. 
Scotsman further stated that there is also some utility in low quality 
ice. (Scotsman, No. 0016 at p. 160)
    DOE proposes to standardize the ice quality of continuous type ice 
makers using the ``Procedure for Determining Ice Quality'' in section 
A.3 of normative annex A in ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. In this procedure, 
a calorimeter constant is calculated, which is essentially a ratio of 
the heat content of a given mass of 32 [deg]F ice with no liquid water 
content (100 percent ice quality) divided by the heat content of the 
same mass of 32 [deg]F ice and water mixture (less than 100 percent 
quality) produced by a continuous type ice maker. This is the inverse 
of the ice hardness factor, as defined in AHRI 810-2007, presented as a 
decimal. The calorimeter constant will be 1.0 for 100 percent ice 
quality product and greater than 1.0 for ice with some liquid water 
content. The calorimeter constant will be used to determine an 
adjustment factor based on the energy required to cool ice from 70 
[deg]F to 32 [deg]F and produce a given amount of ice, as shown below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP11.000


    Note: Btu = British thermal units.

    The measured energy consumption per 100 pounds of ice and the 
measured condenser water consumption, as determined using ASHRAE 
Standard 29-2009, will be multiplied by the adjustment factor to yield 
the scaled energy and condenser water consumption values, respectively. 
These values will be reported to DOE to show compliance with the energy 
conservation standard. The measured value of potable water used in 
making ice will not be multiplied by the calorimeter constant because 
all of the potable water is still used to produce usable product for 
continuous type ice makers.
    In response to Scotsman's comment (Scotsman, No. 0016 at p. 160) 
regarding the utility of automatic commercial ice makers that produce 
low quality ice, this test method will not affect the availability of 
automatic commercial ice makers that produce lower quality ice; it will 
simply provide a method by which automatic commercial ice maker energy 
consumption and condenser water use results can be compared to a 
baseline ice quality.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed method to normalize energy and 
condenser water consumption to 32 [deg]F water with no water content 
for continuous type ice makers.
5. Clarify the Test Method and Reporting Requirements for Remote 
Condensing Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
    EPCA establishes energy conservation standards for two types of 
remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers: (1) Remote 
condensing (but not remote compressor) and (2) remote condensing and 
remote compressor. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) Remote condensing (but not 
remote compressor) ice makers must be sold and operated with a 
dedicated remote condenser that is in a separate section from the ice-
making mechanism and compressor. Remote condensing and remote 
compressor automatic commercial ice makers may be operated with a 
dedicated remote condensing unit or connected to a remote compressor 
rack. Both of these remote refrigeration systems contain compressors 
and condensers that are in a separate section from the ice-making 
mechanism that they serve.
    In assessing the current DOE and industry test procedures, DOE has 
noticed an inconsistency in the way the energy use of remote condensing 
and remote compressor ice makers that are designed to be connected to a 
remote compressor rack is reported. Remote condensing and remote 
compressor ice makers sold with a dedicated remote condensing unit 
report energy consumption of the total ice maker; including the energy 
consumption of the ice-making mechanism, the compressor, and the remote 
condenser or condensing unit. Ice makers that are meant to be used with 
a remote compressor rack report only the energy use of the ice-making 
mechanism and do not include any energy use associated with the 
compressors and condensers on the remote compressor rack. The 
compressor and condenser energy consumption are excluded because ice 
maker manufacturers do not have control of the energy efficiency of the 
remote compressor rack. In addition, the same remote compressor rack 
typically serves multiple equipment types in addition to automatic 
commercial ice makers, such as commercial refrigeration equipment and 
walk-in coolers and freezers.
    At the Framework Document public meeting, DOE proposed three 
potential options to address this issue:
    1. A calculation method that applies a default factor to the ice-
making mechanism energy consumption that is representative of remote 
compressor rack energy use;
    2. A measurement method that measures the energy use of a remote 
condensing and remote compressor ice maker with a designated remote 
condensing unit and reports the energy use of both the ice-making 
mechanism and the remote condensing unit; or
    3. A measurement method that measures the energy use of a remote 
condensing and remote compressor ice maker with a designated remote 
condensing unit, but continues to report only the energy use associated 
with the ice-making mechanism.
    In response to these options, Manitowoc Ice stated that while 
remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers could technically be 
tested using a default value for compressor efficiency if the 
refrigerant is measured, this would require a new test procedure and 
may not be justified given the market share of this equipment. 
(Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at pp. 149 and 153) Scotsman and AHRI 
reiterated that the market share of this equipment was small and was 
not expected to grow significantly. (Scotsman, No. 0016 at pp. 151-152; 
AHRI, No. 0016 at p. 150) Manitowoc Ice also commented that ice-making 
heads designed to be connected to remote condensing rack systems are 
essentially the same as those that are sold with a dedicated remote

[[Page 18434]]

condensing unit. (Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at p. 154)
    DOE understands that the market share of this equipment is small. 
However, remote condensing ice makers that are designed to be sold for 
use with a remote rack system are covered equipment pursuant to the 
EPCA definition of an automatic commercial ice maker. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(19)) In addition, as Manitowoc Ice mentioned, remote condensing 
ice makers designed to be connected to remote condensing rack systems 
are essentially the same as those that are sold with a dedicated remote 
condensing unit. Therefore, DOE believes testing remote condensing ice 
makers that are designed to be used with a remote condensing rack could 
be accomplished, without significant additional burden, by testing 
these units with a sufficiently sized dedicated remote condensing unit.
    Option 1 above would require testing of remote condensing ice 
makers that are designed to be used with a remote compressor rack using 
a calculation methodology that would be more representative of the 
energy consumption of the remote compressor rack. This calculation 
method would apply a default factor to the ice-making mechanism which 
would be determined through measurement of the amount of cooling 
supplied to make ice. Information about the amount of cooling supplied 
by the refrigerant is not currently captured in the DOE test procedure. 
DOE believes that this additional testing would result in a significant 
additional burden on manufacturers that would not be warranted given 
the small market share of this equipment. In addition, the remote 
compressor rack is not covered as part of the automatic commercial ice 
maker and, thus, its energy consumption is not required to be captured 
by the DOE test procedure.
    EPCA requires that test procedures ``shall be reasonably designed 
to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 
and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial equipment (or 
class thereof) during a representative average use cycle (as determined 
by the Secretary), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct.'' (42 
U.S.C. 6314(2)) DOE believes that testing all remote condensing and 
remote compressor automatic commercial ice makers that are designed to 
be connected to a remote compressor rack with a dedicated remote 
condensing unit will represent the energy consumption of this equipment 
without introducing undue burden. In addition, this method provides a 
straightforward and consistent way to compare the performance of remote 
condensing and remote compressor ice makers, both those sold with 
dedicated remote condensing units and those designed to be used with 
remote compressor rack systems. Therefore, DOE proposes that all remote 
condensing and remote compressor ice makers be tested with a dedicated 
remote condensing unit and report the energy use of the ice-making 
mechanism, the compressor, and the condenser.
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to require testing of all 
remote condensing ice makers with a dedicated remote condensing unit 
and reporting of ice-making mechanism, compressor, and condenser energy 
use.
6. Provide a Test Method for Modulating Capacity Automatic Commercial 
Ice Makers
    An ice maker could be designed for multiple capacity levels, either 
using a single compressor capable of multiple or variable capacities, 
or using multiple compressors. This would be attractive since ice 
makers operate at full capacity for only a small portion of the time, 
if at all. Such a system could produce ice more efficiently at a lower 
capacity level because there would be more surface area available 
relative to the mass flow of refrigerant. There is no evidence that any 
such system has been sold or tested anywhere in the world. However, the 
basic concept is illustrated by the current use of different capacity 
models using the same heat exchangers with different capacity 
compressors. For such product pairs, the lower capacity machine is 
generally more efficient.
    At the Framework Document public meeting, the American Council for 
an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), represented by Adjuvant 
Consulting, stated that two-stage or modulating compressors should not 
be eliminated from the group of design options. (Adjuvant Consulting, 
No. 0016 at pp. 78-79)
    While multiple or variable capacity systems (i.e., a modulating 
system) could become a design feature in the future, DOE recognizes 
that there are currently no commercialized products or prototypes 
available. However, DOE believes that a test procedure can be developed 
that allows measurement of the efficiency benefits of variable capacity 
technologies. Multiple capacity systems can be rated under the current 
test procedure at their maximum capacity rating. This will continue to 
be an option for showing compliance with DOE energy conservation 
standards. Also, an optional test procedure to capture the energy and 
water efficiency benefits of modulating capacity systems could be 
developed to allow systems that use a variable or multiple capacity 
system to claim those savings. Incorporating a test method for 
modulating capacity systems into the test procedure could provide an 
opportunity for and incentivize future development of such systems that 
could use this technology to obtain a higher efficiency rating. This is 
valuable for manufacturers that may wish to qualify units for voluntary 
efficiency programs, such as the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) 
or ENERGY STAR.[supreg]
    To capture the energy and water use of variable or multiple 
capacity systems, a test procedure would need to measure energy use in 
kilowatt-hours per 100 pounds of ice and water use in gallons per 100 
pounds of ice of at least two production rates and calculate weighted 
average energy use and water use values. DOE proposes that, for 
modulating capacity systems, testing can be done at the maximum and 
minimum capacity settings. These values would then be averaged to 
determine the energy consumption and condenser water consumption of the 
ice maker. While equal weighting is perhaps not representative of 
actual utilization factors in the field, DOE would need additional data 
to develop a better informed estimate.
    In addition, DOE proposes that this test procedure for multiple or 
modulating capacity systems be optional. Only testing at the maximum 
capacity setting would be required for modulating capacity systems. 
However, if a manufacturer wished to show increased energy savings due 
to the installation of variable capacity technologies, this test 
procedure also may be used to show compliance with the energy 
conservation standard.
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow for optional test 
procedure for modulating capacity automatic commercial ice makers. 
Specifically, DOE requests comment on the weighting of the energy 
consumption at the minimum and maximum capacity settings.
7. Discontinue Use of a Clarified Energy Rate Calculation
    The current DOE test procedure references ARI Standard 810-2003, 
with an amended calculation for determining the energy consumption rate 
for the purposes of compliance with DOE's energy conservation 
standards. ARI Standard 810-2003 references ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 
(RA2005) as the method of test for this equipment, including the 
equations for calculating the energy consumption rate per 100

[[Page 18435]]

pounds of ice produced. In the 2006 test procedure proposed rule, DOE 
found the language in ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005) unclear and 
proposed that the energy consumption rate be normalized to 100 pounds 
of ice instead and be determined as follows. 71 FR 71340, 71350 (Dec. 
8, 2006).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP11.001

    At the September 2006 public meeting for the 2006 test procedure 
proposed rule, ARI commented in support of DOE's proposal to adopt ARI 
Standard 810-2003 as the test procedure for automatic commercial ice 
makers with the revised energy use rate equation. However, ARI further 
stated that the ARI and ASHRAE standards have been used without the 
clarification. 71 FR at 71351 (Dec. 8, 2006).
    The equation contained in ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005), as 
adopted, directs that the energy consumption shall be calculated as the 
weight of ice produced during three specified time periods divided by 
the power consumed during those same three time periods. The specified 
time periods are defined as three complete cycles for batch type ice 
makers and three 14.4-minute periods for continuous type ice makers. 
The verbatim equation from ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005) is as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP11.002

    In the above equation, kWh/100 lb ice refers to the desired energy 
consumption rate normalized per 100 pounds of ice produced; 8.4a refers 
to the section of the standard that describes the data to be recorded 
for the calculation of energy consumption, in this case the energy 
input in kilowatt-hours for the same periods prescribed for measurement 
of capacity; and 8.2a refers to the data to be recorded for the 
capacity test, specifically weight in pounds of ice produced for three 
prescribed periods of collection. This equation did not change in the 
update of ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005) to the most recent ASHRAE 
Standard 29-2009.
    DOE concludes that the existing equation in ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 
is interpreted differently than specified by the amended DOE equation 
for calculation of energy consumption rate. ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 
directs that the energy consumption rate be calculated for each of the 
three periods specified in the test method as the power consumption for 
that period divided by the mass of ice collected in that period, as 
shown below.

For i = 1 to 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP11.003

    This result is then averaged and multiplied by 100 to obtain an 
average energy consumption rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP11.004

    The previous concern with ambiguity around the energy consumption 
rate equation was based on the possibility that manufacturers might 
discard some ice captured during the periods specified in the capacity 
test and then divide the total energy use, for all three periods, by a 
lesser volume of ice, thereby overstating the energy consumption of the 
equipment. 71 FR 42178, 42184 (July 25, 2006). Although the text in 
ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 did not change between the 1988 and 2009 
versions, DOE has reexamined the energy consumption rate calculations 
contained in the ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 test procedures and concluded 
that the procedure is clear and no ambiguity exists. The ASHRAE 
Standard 29-2009 test procedure clearly states that the mass of ice 
collected will be recorded for each of the three complete periods 
specified. ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 also states that the power 
consumption will be recorded for the same three periods. DOE believes 
that this statement is clear and does not provide opportunity for 
misinterpretation. Additionally, DOE acknowledges that this method may 
show more consistency in the average energy use rate calculation and, 
further, is the method typically used in industry today. DOE proposes 
to remove the clarification for the calculation of energy consumption 
rate in this rulemaking.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate AHRI Standard 
810-2007, with reference to ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 as the method of 
test, without specification or clarification of the calculation for 
energy consumption rate.

B. Response to Additional Comments Raised by Interested Parties at the 
Framework Document Public Meeting

    The following sections contain responses to comments received at 
the

[[Page 18436]]

December 16, 2011 Framework Document public meeting that were not 
specifically addressed in the discussion of test procedure revisions, 
including:

1. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines
2. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy Use
3. Measurement of Storage Bin Effectiveness
4. Establishment of a Metric for Potable Water Used in Making Ice
5. Standardization of Water Hardness for Measurement of Potable Water 
Used in Making Ice
6. Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers at the Highest Purge Setting
1. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines
    At the Framework Document public meeting, the categorization of 
tube type ice machines was discussed. Scotsman commented that tube ice 
could be treated as a batch process in the same equipment class as cube 
ice. (Scotsman, No. 0016 at p. 43) Manitowoc Ice agreed, but cautioned 
against lumping them all together because of the different consumer 
applications and utilities, such as the larger footprint of tube type 
ice machines. (Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at pp. 49-50 and 53-54) 
Manitowoc further commented that tube ice can be tested under the 
currently available industry test procedures, but should be treated as 
a separate equipment class. (Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at p. 50)
    Tube type automatic commercial ice makers produce cube, flake, or 
nugget ice. In making cube ice, they use a batch process, as do 
conventional cube ice machines. Because tube ice has lower clarity than 
cube ice from conventional machines, tube ice may have a different 
market. There are no tube ice machines of less than 2,000 pounds of ice 
per 24 hours on the market. Manufacturers are currently using the 
existing test procedure for tube ice machines.
    DOE agrees with the comments from Scotsman and Manitowoc Ice 
regarding categorization of tube type ice machines, and finds that tube 
type machines can be tested under the currently available test 
procedures. Therefore, DOE proposes to clarify in the DOE test 
procedure that tube and other batch technologies can be tested by the 
current industry test procedures using the cube type test method.
2. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy Use
    In assessing the operation and energy consumption of automatic 
commercial ice makers, DOE determined that there are potential phases 
of operation during the non-ice making periods that currently are not 
accounted for in the test procedure. Although DOE is not required to 
quantify auxiliary energy use, DOE is not prevented from including them 
in the test procedures and energy conservations standards for automatic 
commercial ice makers, if warranted. DOE examined the significance of 
these auxiliary energy loads for automatic commercial ice makers to 
determine if incorporation into the test procedure and energy 
conservation standard was justified.
    At the Framework Document public meeting, Manitowoc Ice mentioned 
that standby energy use due to sensors could represent an electrical 
load as high as 10 watts in some units. (Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at p. 
143) Manitowoc Ice further stated that although such standby electrical 
energy consumption exists in some cases, the overall energy consumption 
was negligible and does not warrant consideration in the test procedure 
or standard rulemakings. (Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at pp. 140-141)
    DOE performed a preliminary assessment to corroborate the 
estimations of interested parties and found that energy use due to 
electrical sensors during non-ice-making periods contributed 1 percent 
or less to the total energy consumption of the ice maker. If DOE chose 
to quantify this load, a measurement of electrical consumption during 
non-ice-making times could be incorporated into the test procedure. 
Given the small magnitude of this energy use, DOE believes 
quantification of auxiliary energy use during non-ice-making periods is 
not justified. Note that the provision within EISA that standby mode 
energy usage must be quantified (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) only appears 
in the section that pertains to consumer products, and therefore does 
not apply to commercial equipment.
    DOE requests comment on its determination that an additional test 
procedure to quantify auxiliary energy use during non-ice-making 
periods is not justified.
3. Measurement of Storage Bin Effectiveness
    Energy use that occurs to replace ice that has melted in the ice 
storage bin prior to dispensing or use is currently quantified in the 
Canadian and Australian standards and test procedures for automatic 
commercial ice makers. In addition, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 
has incorporated storage bin effectiveness into its energy efficiency 
standard as a separate metric that applies only to self-contained 
automatic commercial ice makers. The NRCan standard for storage bin 
effectiveness ranges from 60 to 80 percent, depending on capacity of 
the ice storage bin.\4\ If this range is representative of ice storage 
bin effectiveness, meltage could represent approximately 10 percent 
additional ice production, and thus 10 percent additional energy use, 
per 24 hours. Storage bin effectiveness will similarly impact condenser 
water use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CSA C742-08. Energy Performance of automatic icemaker and 
storage bins. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario, 
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the Framework Document public meeting, many manufacturers stated 
that energy use associated with ice storage was outside the scope of 
this rulemaking and the ice storage compartments were not refrigerated 
on any ice makers. (AHRI, No. 0016 at p. 84; Scotsman, No. 0016 at p. 
84; Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at pp. 84-85) Manufacturers also commented 
that including ice storage bin effectiveness for only some ice makers 
would not be fair or provide an accurate comparison. (Manitowoc Ice, 
No. 0016 at p. 86)
    A common metric used to quantify ice meltage in the ice storage bin 
is storage bin effectiveness. Storage bin effectiveness is defined as a 
theoretical expression of the fraction of ice that under specific 
rating conditions would be expected to remain in the ice storage bin 24 
hours after it is produced, with units of percent. AHRI has a standard, 
AHRI 820-2000, that describes a test method for quantifying the 
effectiveness of ice storage bins. This method, or a similar method, is 
also used in the Canadian and Australian test procedures for automatic 
commercial ice makers to quantify ice storage bin effectiveness.
    While quantifying the additional energy use associated with ice 
storage losses could contribute to additional energy savings, doing so 
would result in an inconsistency between the standards for self-
contained and remote condensing ice makers or ice-making heads, and 
thus an increased burden for manufacturers of self-contained units. DOE 
believes that the additional burden associated with testing storage bin 
effectiveness is not warranted at this time. As such, DOE will not 
include a quantification of meltage in the storage bin in this 
rulemaking.
    DOE requests comments or data related to the impact of storage bin 
effectiveness on the energy and water consumption of automatic 
commercial ice makers. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the 
appropriate test method and metric for storage bin effectiveness and 
the burden associated with adopting such a test method.

[[Page 18437]]

4. Establishment of a Metric for Potable Water Used to Produce Ice
    The current DOE energy conservation standard for automatic 
commercial ice makers established metrics of energy use per 100 pounds 
of ice for all equipment classes, and condenser water use per 100 
pounds of ice produced for water-cooled models only. The current DOE 
test procedure references ARI Standard 810-2003 as the test procedure 
to calculate condenser water use. The updated AHRI Standard 810-2007 
contains the same calculation for condenser water use.
    However, automatic commercial ice makers consume potable water to 
produce ice as well. AHRI Standard 810-2007 defines ``potable water use 
rate'' as the amount of potable water used in making ice, including 
``dump'' water. AHRI Standard 810-2007 defines ``dump water'' as the 
water drainage from an ice maker to control the clarity of ice or to 
prevent scaling. In this document, potable water used to produce ice 
will refer to the water that leaves the machine in the form of ice as 
well as any dump water or other excess that is expelled from the 
machine during the ice-making process.
    While there is generally a positive relationship between energy use 
and potable water use, there may be a point at which the relationship 
between potable water use and energy consumption reverses. At the ACIM 
Framework Document public meeting, Manitowoc Ice and Scotsman both 
indicated that, from a technology standpoint, reducing potable water 
use generally improves energy efficiency, but if potable water use is 
reduced beyond a certain threshold, efficiency could decrease due to 
scaling. (Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at pp. 94-95; Scotsman, No. 0016 at 
p. 94) Larger amounts of dump water can benefit ice quality but 
increase overall potable water consumption.
    Including potable water used to produce ice in the overall water 
metric could produce significant water savings and additional energy 
savings. At the ACIM Framework Document public meeting, the Appliance 
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) indicated support for a potable 
water use metric, noting that they have seen significant improvements 
in the industry in lowering water consumption, but that there is still 
room for additional innovation. (ASAP, No. 0016 at pp. 15-16 and p. 93) 
The current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ENERGY STAR standard 
for automatic ice makers limits water use in air-cooled machines to 
less than 25 gallons per 100 pounds of ice for remote condensing 
automatic commercial ice makers and 35 gallons per 100 pounds of ice 
for self-contained equipment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Both the previously referenced ARI Standard 810-2003 and the 
updated AHRI Standard 810-2007 provide a test method to measure the 
amount of water used in making ice in units of gallons per 100 pounds 
of ice.
    At the Framework Document public meeting, DOE suggested the 
possibility of defining a new metric of ``total water use'' in gallons 
per 100 pounds of ice. Total water use was proposed to be calculated as 
the sum of the condenser water use and the potable water used to 
produce ice. Manitowoc Ice and Scotsman commented that potable water 
use and condenser water use should be kept as separate metrics because 
of their different uses and magnitudes. (Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at p. 
97; Scotsman, No. 0016 at p. 145)
    Following the ACIM Framework document public meeting, DOE examined 
the statutory authority provided in EPCA for the establishment of test 
procedures and energy and water conservation standards for automatic 
commercial ice makers and determined that DOE does not have a direct 
mandate from Congress to regulate potable water use under 42 U.S.C. 
6313. Specifically, EPCA prescribes standards for condenser water use 
in cube type ice makers and explicitly states that condenser water use 
should not include potable water used to make ice. As such, DOE 
proposes not to regulate potable water used in making ice in this 
rulemaking.
    DOE requests comment on its decision not to measure or regulate 
potable water used in making ice.
5. Standardization of Water Hardness for Measurement of Potable Water 
Used in Making Ice
    Differences in water hardness can cause ice machines to use more or 
less energy and water. Harder water has a greater concentration of 
total dissolved solids and chemical ions, which affects the thermal 
properties of the water. Harder water depresses the freezing 
temperature of water and results in increased energy use to produce the 
same quantity of ice. In addition, harder water requires a higher purge 
setting to prevent scaling and a decrease in ice clarity.
    At the Framework Document public meeting, ACEEE stated that it may 
be necessary to standardize water hardness in the test procedure due to 
the effects of water hardness on water and energy consumption. 
(Adjuvant Consulting, No. 0016 at pp. 96 and 102) However, Scotsman 
commented that water hardness will not dramatically affect energy 
consumption or performance on a short-term test and did not need to be 
standardized. (Scotsman, No. 0016 at p. 160)
    While DOE recognizes that differences in water hardness can affect 
the energy and water consumption of an automatic commercial ice maker, 
DOE believes that there is still uncertainty in the causal relationship 
between total dissolved solids, ion concentration, and ice maker 
performance. Specifically, it is not clear whether total dissolved 
solids or ion concentration is more significant in impacting energy 
performance and reliability of an ice maker. As such, an appropriate 
standardized water hardness for use in a test procedure cannot be 
accurately specified, and even if it could, applying such a test 
procedure would increase the testing burden for manufacturers. Doing so 
would require: Additional data or information regarding (1) The 
relationship between total dissolved solids, ion concentration, and 
energy and water use; (2) the magnitude of these effects; and (3) 
specific testing methodologies that would produce repeatable results. 
Given the uncertainty in the relationship between water hardness and 
water and energy consumption, DOE is unable to conclude that this 
metric is either technically feasible or economically justified. In 
addition, water hardness would primarily impact potable water used in 
making ice, which DOE is not regulating in this rulemaking. As a 
result, DOE proposes not to standardize water hardness in the test 
procedure at this time, but requests additional data that would support 
evaluation of the need for a standardized water hardness test.
6. Test Batch Type Ice Makers at the Highest Purge Setting
    Currently, automatic commercial ice makers are required to meet 
specific maximum allowable condenser water use levels, depending on 
equipment type, cooling type (water or air), and harvest rate (pounds 
of ice per 24-hour period). The water usage of automatic commercial ice 
makers varies by application, equipment type, and size.
    At the Framework Document public meeting, ASAP cautioned that 
installers may install cube type ice makers with a purge setting in the 
highest water use position, which may result in

[[Page 18438]]

substantially higher water consumption in the field compared to the 
manufacturer tested water consumption. (ASAP, No. 0016 at p. 16)
    Although both AHRI 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 require 
that the ice makers be set up pursuant to a manufacturer's instruction, 
DOE acknowledges that this may not capture the maximum potable water 
consumption of the unit or, perhaps, the most common water consumption 
setting of the unit, as indicated by ASAP. However, DOE has neither the 
data to validate nor the authority to regulate how ice makers are 
typically installed in the field.
    While testing units with their purge controls in the maximum water 
use position will allow the test procedure to capture the maximum 
potable water use and energy use of automatic commercial ice makers 
and, thus, prevent ice makers from being sold that have purge settings 
that would exceed the maximum water use standard, the level of purge 
water primarily impacts potable water used in making ice. As DOE is 
proposing not to regulate potable water used in making ice in this 
rulemaking, DOE does not believe it is justified to require testing of 
automatic commercial ice makers at the highest purge setting. Instead, 
DOE proposes to continue to require testing of automatic commercial ice 
makers in accordance with AHRI 810-2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. 
DOE will continue to investigate the magnitude and effects of this 
issue by gathering data related to national water hardness, the 
difference between manufacturer specified and maximum purge settings, 
and the way ice makers are typically installed in the field.
    DOE requests comment on testing units at the highest water 
consumption purge setting. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the 
difference in energy and water consumption when tested at the maximum 
purge setting versus as specified by the manufacturer.

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 
proposed action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule 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. As required by Executive 
Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and 
policies on February 19, 2003, so that the potential impacts of its 
rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking 
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available 
on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    For manufacturers of automatic commercial icemakers, the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines 
those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of 
the statute. DOE used the SBA's size standards published on January 31, 
1996, as amended, to determine whether any small entities would be 
required to comply with the rule. 61 FR 3280, 3286, as amended at 67 FR 
3041, 3045 (Jan. 23, 2002) and at 69 FR 29192, 29203 (May 21, 2004); 
see also 65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 
53545 (Sept. 5, 2000). The size standards are codified at 13 CFR part 
121. The standards are listed by North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at 
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. Automatic commercial ice maker manufacturers are 
classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 
Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less for 
an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update the industry test procedures 
referenced in the current DOE test procedure for automatic commercial 
ice makers. DOE is also proposing amendments to:
    1. Expand the scope of the test procedure to include equipment with 
capacities from 50 to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours;
    2. Provide test methods for all batch type and continuous type ice 
makers;
    3. Standardize the measurement of energy and water use for 
continuous type ice makers with respect to ice quality;
    4. Specify the test method for remote condensing automatic 
commercial ice makers;
    5. Specify an optional test method for modulating capacity ice 
makers; and
    6. Discontinue the use of a clarified energy use rate calculation 
and instead calculate energy use per 100 pounds of ice of ice as 
specified in ASHRAE Standard 29.
    Changes to the existing rule as described above have potential 
impacts on manufacturers who will be required to revise their current 
testing procedures for compliance. DOE has analyzed these impacts on 
small businesses and presents its findings below.
    DOE examined the potential impacts of the additional testing 
procedures proposed in this rulemaking under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. In using these procedures, DOE conducted a more 
focused inquiry into small business manufacturers of products covered 
by this rulemaking. During its market survey, DOE used all available 
public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's 
research involved the review of industry trade association membership 
directories (including the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers), product databases (e.g., Federal Trade Commission, the 
Thomas Register, California Energy Commission (CEC), and ENERGY STAR 
databases), individual company Web sites, and marketing research tools 
(e.g., Dunn and Bradstreet reports) to create a list of companies that 
manufacture or sell automatic commercial ice makers covered by this 
rulemaking. DOE reviewed this data to determine whether the entities 
met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of automatic 
commercial icemakers and screened out companies that do not offer 
products covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a 
``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated.
    DOE initially identified 24 distinct brands of automatic commercial 
ice makers available in the U.S. sold by a variety of distributors, 
wholesalers, and retail establishments. Of these 24 companies, 10 were 
determined to be foreign owned or outside the scope of the small 
business classification. Of the remaining 14 entities, 5 manufacture 
ice makers for residential uses and one company has filed for 
bankruptcy. Thus, DOE identified 8 manufacturers that

[[Page 18439]]

produce covered products and can be considered small businesses. From 
its analysis, DOE determined the expected impacts of the rule on 
affected small businesses and whether an IRFA was needed (i.e., whether 
DOE could certify that this rulemaking would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities).
    Table IV.1 stratifies the small businesses according to their 
number of employees. The smallest company has 5 employees and the 
largest company 175 employees. The majority of the small businesses 
affected by this rulemaking (75 percent) have fewer than 50 employees 
and all but one of the small businesses have fewer than 100 employees.

                             Table IV.1--Small Business Size by Number of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of     Percentage of
                       Number of employees                             small           small        Cumulative
                                                                    businesses      businesses      percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-10............................................................               3              38              38
11-20...........................................................               0               0              38
21-30...........................................................               2              25              63
31-40...........................................................               1              13              75
41-50...........................................................               0               0              75
51-60...........................................................               0               0              75
61-70...........................................................               0               0              75
71-80...........................................................               0               0              75
81-90...........................................................               1              13              88
91-100..........................................................               0               0              88
101-110.........................................................               0               0              88
111-120.........................................................               0               0              88
121-130.........................................................               0               0              88
131-140.........................................................               0               0              88
141-150.........................................................               0               0              88
150-160.........................................................               0               0              88
160-170.........................................................               0               0              88
170-180.........................................................               1              13             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, only automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube 
type ice with capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per 24 
hours must be tested using the DOE test procedure to show compliance 
with energy conservation standards established in EPACT 2005. Automatic 
commercial ice makers with larger capacities, batch type ice makers 
that produce other than cube type ice, and continuous type ice makers 
of any capacity have not been subject to this rule. This rulemaking 
would institute new testing requirements for automatic commercial batch 
type ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities between 
2,500 and 4,000 pounds of ice of ice per 24 hours, batch type ice 
makers that produce other than cube type ice, and continuous type ice 
makers of all capacities. The costs to manufacturers associated with 
these testing procedures were estimated to range from $5,000 to $7,500 
per tested model. This estimate is based on input from manufacturers 
and third party testing labs for completing a test as specified by AHRI 
Standard 810-2007 on automatic commercial ice makers. Additional 
testing requirements will be mandatory for continuous type ice makers 
to assess ice quality. Discussion and quantification of these two 
additional rules is provided below.
    The additional test methods required for continuous type ice makers 
will standardize energy and water use with respect to ice quality. This 
test will consist of performing an additional calorimetry test, as 
specified in ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. DOE estimates that performing 
this test will require 2 additional hours of laboratory time, including 
the time to perform necessary calculations, per unit. Costs associated 
with the calorimetry test have been estimated by DOE to equal 
approximately 10 percent of the AHRI 810 test or $500 to $740. These 
costs would not include those associated with transportation, assuming 
that the unit would be analyzed at the same time as the required AHRI 
810 test. DOE estimates that 28 percent of all automatic commercial ice 
makers would be subject to this additional test procedure. This 
estimate was developed based on publicly available listings of 
automatic commercial ice makers (e.g., AHRI and CEC databases) and 
manufacturer Web sites.
    The primary cost for small businesses under this rulemaking would 
result from the aforementioned additional testing requirements. These 
costs were applied to the number of existing designs subject to testing 
requirements outlined in this rulemaking, which DOE estimated at 30 
models. Further, DOE assumes that each company would introduce a new 
base model in each year (total of 8 new models for testing) of the 5-
year (2015-2019) analysis time horizon. Thus, costs are most 
significant in the first year following implementation of the new 
testing requirements as existing models are tested but decline in 
future years as the requirements are applied only to new models. Two 
scenarios were developed to reflect the low- and high-end costs 
estimates for each test presented previously in this section. Based on 
these assumptions, testing costs for small businesses were estimated at 
$154,200 to $228,216 in 2015 and $41,120 to $60,858 in 2016 through 
2019.
    In addition to testing costs, DOE estimates an additional $5,147 in 
review and filing costs over the 5-year analysis time horizon. DOE 
bases its estimate on the assumptions that it would take an engineer 2 
hours to communicate with the testing laboratory, review test results, 
prepare adequate documentation, and file the report. The average hourly 
salary for an engineer completing these tasks is estimated at 
$38.74.\6\ Fringe benefits are estimated at 30 percent of total 
compensation, which brings the hourly costs to employers associated 
with review and filing of reports to $55.34.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Washington, DC.
    \7\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. 
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--Management, Professional, 
and Related Employees. Washington, DC.

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

[[Page 18440]]

    The incremental costs incurred by small businesses to implement the 
requirements of this rulemaking are summarized in Table IV.2. Total 
costs to small businesses are estimated at $323,827 to $476,793 over 
the 5-year analysis time horizon. The present value costs of this 
rulemaking on small businesses are estimated at $227,512 to $334,982, 
or $28,439 to $41,873 per small business. Annual costs are discounted 
using a 7 percent real discount rate, as recommended in OMB Circular A-
94.

                                         Table IV.2--Annual Costs of Compliance for Small Businesses (2015-2019)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Testing costs         Review/           Total costs            Discounted costs
                             Year                             --------------------------    filing   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Low end      High end      costs       Low end      High end     Low end      High end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015.........................................................     $154,200     $228,216       $2,490     $156,690     $230,706     $119,538     $176,005
2016.........................................................       41,120       60,858          664       41,784       61,522       29,791       43,864
2017.........................................................       41,120       60,858          664       41,784       61,522       27,843       40,995
2018.........................................................       41,120       60,858          664       41,784       61,522       26,021       38,313
2019.........................................................       41,120       60,858          664       41,784       61,522       24,319       35,806
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals...................................................      154,200      228,216        2,490      156,690      230,706      119,538      176,005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Average Cost per Small Business                                                      28,439       41,873
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on its estimated additional cost of testing due 
to the new requirements for testing presented in this NOPR. 
Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the impacts of the additional cost 
of testing on small manufacturers.
    The findings of the DOE analysis suggest that small business 
manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers would not be 
disproportionally impacted by the proposed energy conservation 
standard, relative to their competition. Testing procedures are 
required for each base model and only models produced by manufacturers 
that are covered by this rule would be required to be tested. Research 
conducted by DOE indicates that the small entities affected by this 
regulation produce fewer automatic commercial ice makers, on average, 
when compared to larger businesses. Small businesses manufacture, on 
average, 4 base models covered by this rule, while large businesses 
manufacture an average of 34 affected base models. Thus, small 
businesses are subject to fewer testing procedures for base models, and 
testing costs for large businesses are estimated to be approximately 
8.5 times higher than costs for small businesses. DOE has, therefore, 
concluded that large and small entities would incur a proportional 
distribution of costs associated with the new testing requirements.
    DOE conducted an analysis to measure the testing cost burden 
relative to the net profits of small manufacturers. The analysis 
utilized financial data gathered from other public sources to derive 
the average annual net profits of the small businesses impacted by this 
rule. The average industry net profit margin was estimated at 7.74 
percent.\8\ Net profits represent gross profits minus all overhead 
costs and expenditures. The annualized costs associated with this 
rulemaking were then compared to estimated net profits to determine the 
magnitude of the cost impacts of this regulation on small businesses. 
Based on this analysis, DOE estimates that the total increase in 
testing burden amounts to approximately 0.8 percent or 1.2 percent of 
low and high end cost estimates, respectively. DOE further estimates 
that the cost burden of the testing procedures is equal to 
approximately 0.1 percent of average annual sales ($8.9 million) per 
small entity affected by this regulation. DOE concludes that these 
values do not represent a significant economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ BizStats. Free Business Statistics and Financial Ratios. 
Industry Income-Expense Statements. (Last accessed February 17, 
2011.) <http://www.bizstats.com/corporation-industry-financials/manufacturing-31/machinery-manufacturing-333/ventilation-heating-a-c-and-commercial-refrigeration-equipment-333410/show>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the criteria outlined above, DOE has determined that the 
proposed testing procedure amendments would not have a ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and the 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is not warranted. 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 seeks comment on its reasoning that the proposed test procedure 
changes would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers must certify to 
DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy 
conservation standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must 
test their equipment according to the DOE test procedure for automatic 
commercial ice makers, including any amendments adopted for that test 
procedure. DOE has proposed regulations for the certification and 
recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers. 75 FR 
56796 (Sept. 16, 2010). 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 submitted to OMB for approval. 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.
    Public comment is sought regarding whether this proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 
ways to minimize the

[[Page 18441]]

burden of the collection of information, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the 
collection of information to Charles Llenza (see ADDRESSES) and by e-
mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcffd4ced5cfc8d5d2d9e3f692e3f7c5d1d2fcd3d1de92d9d3cc92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ffbc978d968c8b96919aa0b5d1a0b4869291bf90929dd19a908fd1989089">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 test procedures 
that may be used to implement future energy conservation standards for 
automatic commercial ice makers. DOE has determined that this rule 
falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from 
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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 
would not affect the quality or distribution of energy usage and, 
therefore, would 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 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 13735. DOE has examined today's 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 a waiver of such preemption to the extent, and based 
on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to 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 so 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. L. 
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 12820. (This policy is 
also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov.) Today's proposed rule 
contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may 
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these 
requirements do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 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 agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general

[[Page 18442]]

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, within OMB, 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.
    Today's regulatory action to amend the test procedures for 
measuring the energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 
Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a 
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it 
is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91), 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 (15 U.S.C. 788). 
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. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule that adopted the 
test procedure specified ARI Standard 810-2003, ``Performance Rating of 
Automatic Commercial Ice-Makers,'' section 3, ``Definitions,'' section 
4, ``Test Requirements,'' and section 5, ``Rating Requirements,'' with 
a revised method for calculating the energy consumption rate. ARI 
Standard 810-2003 references the ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (RA 2005), 
``Method of Testing Automatic Ice Makers,'' as the method of test. 71 
FR 71340, 71350. The proposed rule incorporates testing methods 
contained in the revisions to these commercial standards, AHRI Standard 
810-2007, ``Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice-Makers,'' 
section 3, ``Definitions,'' section 4, ``Test Requirements,'' and 
section 5, ``Rating Requirements'' and ASHRAE Standard 29-2009, 
``Method of Testing Automatic Ice Makers.'' DOE has evaluated these 
standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the 
requirements of section 323(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 before prescribing a final 
rule about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in 
these standards.

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#195b6b7c777d78375c7d6e786b7d6a597c7c377d767c377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b79495e555f5a157e5f4c5a495f487b5e5e155f545e155c544d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    As explained in the ADDRESSES section, foreign nationals visiting 
DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures.
    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://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/automatic_ice_making_equipment.html. 
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 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 notice. 
The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least 
one week before the public meeting and may be e-mailed, hand-delivered, 
or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via 
e-mail. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a 
follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also employ 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 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, interested parties may 
submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of 
the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting, 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 DOE-determined time limits) prior 
to the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time allows, 
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

[[Page 18443]]

answer questions from DOE and 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 notice. 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 other information regarding the 
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 notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 
webpage 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 e-mail, hand delivery, or mail. Comments 
and documents submitted via e-mail, 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 on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, e-
mail 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. E-mail submissions are 
preferred. 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, are written in English, and 
are 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 and 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
e-mail, 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 e-mail 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 comments are welcome on all aspects of this rulemaking, 
DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments on following 
issues.
    Issues presented in the preamble to the proposed rule:
    1. DOE requests comment on its determination that the proposed test 
procedure amendments will not affect the measured energy or water 
consumption of automatic commercial ice makers that are currently 
covered under energy conservation standards. DOE also requests comment 
on the proposal that the use of amended test procedure be required upon 
the effective date of any test procedure final rule, 30 days after 
publication.
    2. DOE requests comment on updating the referenced industry test 
procedures to the most current version.
    3. DOE requests comment on expanding the capacity range from 50 to 
2,500 pounds of ice per 24 hours to 50

[[Page 18444]]

to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. DOE requests comment on providing 
test methods for continuous type ice makers.
    4. DOE requests comment on the proposed method to normalize energy 
and condenser water consumption to 32 [deg]F water with no water 
content for continuous type ice makers.
    5. DOE requests comments or data related to the impact of storage 
bin effectiveness on the energy and water consumption of automatic 
commercial ice makers. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the 
appropriate test method and metric for storage bin effectiveness and 
the burden associated with adopting such a test method.
    6. DOE requests comment on the proposal to require testing of all 
remote condensing ice makers with a dedicated remote condensing unit 
and reporting of ice-making mechanism, compressor, and condenser energy 
use.
    7. DOE requests comment on the proposal to allow for optional test 
procedure for modulating capacity automatic commercial ice makers. 
Specifically, DOE requests comment on the weighting of the energy 
consumption at the minimum and maximum capacity settings.
    8. DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate AHRI 
Standard 810-2007 without specification or clarification as to the 
calculation for energy.
    9. DOE requests comment on its determination that an additional 
test procedure to quantify auxiliary energy use during non-ice making 
periods is not justified given the relative magnitude of energy 
consumption.
    10. DOE requests comment on its decision not to measure potable 
water used in making ice.
    11. DOE requests additional data that would support evaluation of 
the need for a standardized water hardness test.
    12. DOE requests comment on testing units at the highest water 
consumption purge setting. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the 
difference in energy and water consumption when tested at the maximum 
purge setting versus the purge setting as specified by the 
manufacturer.
    13. DOE seeks comment on its estimated additional cost of testing 
due to the new requirements for testing presented in this NOPR. 
Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the impacts of the additional cost 
of testing on small manufacturers.
    14. DOE seeks comment on its reasoning 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 today's 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 2011.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology 
Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

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

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

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

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

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


Sec.  431.132  Definitions concerning automatic commercial ice makers.

* * * * *
    Batch type ice maker means an ice maker having alternate freezing 
and harvesting periods. This includes automatic commercial ice makers 
that produce cube type ice, tube type automatic commercial ice makers, 
and other batch technologies. Also referred to as cube type ice maker 
in AHRI Standard 810-2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.133), AHRI Standard 810-2007's definition clarifies that ``cube'' 
does not reference a specific size or shape and includes all automatic 
commercial ice makers with alternate freezing and harvesting periods.
    Continuous type ice maker means an ice maker that continuously 
freezes and harvests ice at the same time.
* * * * *
    Energy use means the total energy consumed, stated in kilowatt 
hours per one-hundred pounds (kWh/100 lb) of ice stated in multiples of 
0.1. For remote condensing (but not remote compressor) automatic 
commercial ice makers and remote condensing and remote compressor 
automatic commercial ice makers, total energy consumed shall include 
the energy use of the ice-making mechanism, the compressor, and the 
remote condenser or condensing unit.
* * * * *
    3. Section 431.133 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.133  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) General. We incorporate by reference the following standards 
into Subpart H of Part 431. The material listed has been approved for 
incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent 
amendment to a standard by the standard-setting organization will not 
affect the DOE regulations unless and until amended by DOE. Material is 
incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval and a notice of 
any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. 
All approved material is available for inspection at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is available for 
inspection at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024, 202-586-2945, or go to: 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. Standards 
can be obtained from the sources listed below.
    (b) AHRI. The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) merged 
in 2008 with the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute to become 
the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI). 
Anyone can obtain a copy of AHRI Standard 810-2007 from the Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd, 
Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d0c051f042d0c051f0403081943021f0a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2e4f465c476e4f465c47404b5a00415c49">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
http://www.ahrinet.org/Content/StandardsProgram_20.aspx.
    (1) Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 
810-2007, ``Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers,'' 
(``AHRI Standard 810-2007''), IBR approved for Sec.  431.134.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (c) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-

[[Page 18445]]

Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, GA 
30329, (404) 636-8400, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4425372c3625210425372c3625216a2b3623"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a6b7962786b6f4a6b7962786b6f2465786d">[email protected]</span></a>, or http://www.ashrae.org.
    (1) American National Standards Institute/American Society of 
Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 29-
2009, (``ASHRAE Standard 29-2009''), ``Method of Testing Automatic Ice 
Makers,'' IBR approved for Sec.  431.134.
    (2) [Reserved].
    4. Section 431.134 is revised to read as follows:


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

    (a) Scope. This section provides the test procedures for measuring, 
pursuant to EPCA, the energy use in kilowatt hours per 100 pounds of 
ice (kWh/100 lb ice) and the condenser water use in gallons per 100 
pounds of ice (gal/100 lb ice) of automatic commercial ice makers with 
capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours.
    (b) Testing and Calculations. Measure the energy use and the 
condenser water use of each covered product by conducting the test 
procedures set forth in AHRI Standard 810-2007, section 3, 
``Definitions,'' section 4, ``Test Requirements,'' and section 5, 
``Rating Requirements'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.133). 
Where AHRI Standard 810-2007 references ``ASHRAE Standard 29,'' ASHRAE 
Standard 29-2009 shall be used (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.133).
    (1) For batch type automatic commercial ice-making heads, remote 
condensing (but not remote compressor) automatic commercial ice makers, 
and remote condensing and remote compressor automatic commercial ice 
makers; the energy use and condenser water use will be reported as 
measured in this paragraph (b), including the energy and water 
consumption, as applicable, of the ice-making mechanism, the 
compressor, and the condenser or condensing unit.
    (2)(i) For continuous type automatic commercial ice makers, 
determine the energy use and condenser water use by multiplying the 
energy consumption or condenser water use as measured in this paragraph 
(b) by the ice quality adjustment factor, determined using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP11.005

    (ii) Determine the calorimeter constant as specified in the 
``Procedure for Determining Ice Quality'' in section A.3 of normative 
annex A of ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.133).
    (3) For batch and continuous type automatic ice makers with 
multiple capacity settings, determine the energy use and condenser 
water use by performing the test procedures in this section at the 
highest capacity setting. The energy consumption and condenser water 
use may optionally be determined by testing the multiple capacity 
automatic commercial ice makers at both the highest and the lowest 
capacity settings and averaging the two results.

[FR Doc. 2011-7728 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>