18428 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 

2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7939 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

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: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: ACIM-2010-TP0036@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket 

number EERE–2010–BT–TP–0036 and/ 

or RIN 1904–AC38 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• 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. 

• 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 

Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov. 

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: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2192, 

Charles_Llenza@ee.doe.gov. 

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, 

Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 AirConditioning, 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18430 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 abovereferenced 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18431 

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. 

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. 1391) 

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, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18432 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2Framework comments submitted by Vogt Ice to 

Detlef Westphalen, Navigant Consulting Inc, 

February 10, 2011. 

3This 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. 

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

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). 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 (°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 °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 °F ice with no liquid water content 

(100 percent ice quality) divided by the 

heat content of the same mass of 32 °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 °F to 32 °F and produce a given 

amount of ice, as shown below: 

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 °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 icemaking 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 icemaking heads designed to be connected 

to remote condensing rack systems are 

essentially the same as those that are 

sold with a dedicated remote 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP04AP11.000</GPH>
18434 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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.®

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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). 

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: 

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 kilowatthours 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: 

This result is then averaged and 

multiplied by 100 to obtain an average 

energy consumption rate: 

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 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP04AP11.001</GPH> EP04AP11.002</GPH> EP04AP11.003</GPH> EP04AP11.004</GPH>
18436 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4CSA C742–08. Energy Performance of automatic 

icemaker and storage bins. Canadian Standards 

Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. 

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-icemaking 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 selfcontained 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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18437 

5U.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. 

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 selfcontained equipment.5

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18438 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18439 

6U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. 2009. National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates. Washington, DC. 

7U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. 2010. Employer Costs for Employee 

Continued 

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 employees 

Number of 

small 

businesses 

Percentage of 

small 

businesses 

Cumulative 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18440 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Compensation—Management, Professional, and 

Related Employees. Washington, DC. 

8BizStats. 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-commercialrefrigeration-equipment-333410/show>. 

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) 

Year 

Testing costs Review/filing 

costs 

Total costs Discounted costs 

Low end High end 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18442 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

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, handdelivered, 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

18444 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 °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: 

§ 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 § 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: 

§ 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 AirConditioning 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 AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd, Suite 500, 

Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, 

ahri@ahrinet.org, 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 

§ 431.134. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(c) ASHRAE. American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Airmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules 18445 

Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 

Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, 

(404) 636–8400, ashrae@ashrae.org, 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 § 431.134. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

4. Section 431.134 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 § 431.133). Where AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 references 

‘‘ASHRAE Standard 29,’’ ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 shall be used 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 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: 

(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 § 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 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

12 CFR Part 234 

[Regulation HH; Docket No. R–1412] 

RIN 7100–AD71 

Financial Market Utilities 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Under section 805(a)(1)(A) of 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (the ‘‘DoddFrank Act’’), the Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System (the 

‘‘Board’’) is required to promulgate riskmanagement standards governing the 

operations related to the payment, 

clearing, and settlement activities of 

certain financial market utilities 

(‘‘FMUs’’) that are designated as 

systemically important by the Financial 

Stability Oversight Council (the 

‘‘Council’’). In addition, under section 

806(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board 

is required to prescribe regulations 

setting forth the standards for 

determining when advance notice is 

required to be provided by a designated 

FMU for which the Board is the 

Supervisory Agency when the 

designated FMU proposes to change its 

rules, procedures, or operations that 

could materially affect the nature or 

level of risks presented by the 

designated FMU. The Board is 

proposing new Part 234 to Title 12 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations to 

implement these provisions of the 

Dodd-Frank Act. 

DATES: Comments on this notice of 

proposed rulemaking must be received 

by May 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. R–1412 and 

RIN No. AD–7100–AD71, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/ 

foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: 

regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. 

Include the docket number in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Facsimile: (202) 452–3819 or (202) 

452–3102. 

• Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, 

Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, 20th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20551. 

All public comments are available 

from the Board’s Web site at http:// 

www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/ 

foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, 

unless modified for technical reasons. 

Accordingly, your comments will not be 

edited to remove any identifying or 

contact information. Public comments 

may also be viewed electronically or in 

paper form in Room MP–500 of the 

Board’s Martin Building (20th and C 

Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

on weekdays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer A. Lucier, Manager (202) 872– 

7581, Division of Reserve Bank 

Operations and Payment Systems; 

Christopher W. Clubb, Senior Counsel 

(202) 452–3904, or Kara L. Handzlik, 

Senior Attorney (202) 452–3852, Legal 

Division; for users of 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

(TDD) only, contact (202) 263–4869. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP04AP11.005</GPH>