This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

1591 

Vol. 77, No. 7 

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–TP–0036] 

RIN 1904–AC38 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Automatic Commercial 

Ice Makers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 4, 2011, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE or the 

Department) issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers (ACIM). That NOPR serves as 

the basis for today’s action. This final 

rule amends the current test procedure 

for automatic commercial ice makers. 

The changes include updating the 

incorporation by reference of industry 

test procedures to the most current 

published versions, expanding coverage 

of the test procedure to all batch type 

and continuous type ice makers with 

capacities between 50 and 4,000 pounds 

of ice per 24 hours, standardizing test 

results based on ice hardness for 

continuous type ice makers, clarifying 

the test methods and reporting 

requirements for automatic ice makers 

designed to be connected to a remote 

compressor rack, and discontinuing the 

use of a clarified energy use equation. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

February 10, 2012. The final rule 

changes will be mandatory for 

equipment testing starting January 7, 

2013. Representations either in writing 

or in any broadcast advertisement 

respecting energy consumption of 

automatic commercial ice makers must 

also be made using the revised DOE test 

procedure on January 7, 2013. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this final 

rule is approved by the Director of the 

Office of the Federal Register as of 

February 10, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for 

review at regulations.gov, including 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the regulations.

gov index. However, not all documents 

listed in the index may be publicly 

available, such as information that is 

exempt from public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

commercial/automatic_ice_making_

equipment.html. This Web page will 

contain a link to the docket for this 

notice on the regulations.gov site. The 

regulations.gov Web page will contain 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. For further information 

on how to review the docket, contact 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 

or by email: 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 Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2192. Email: 

Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: Ari.

Altman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference into Part 

431 the following industry standards: 

(1) Air Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 

810–2007 with Addendum 1, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Automatic 

Commercial Ice-Makers,’’ March 2011; 

and 

(2) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 29–2009, ‘‘Method of Testing 

Automatic Ice Makers,’’ (including 

Errata Sheets 1 and 2, issued April 8, 

2010 and April 12, 2011), approved 

January 28, 2009. 

Copies of AHRI standards can be 

obtained from the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 

2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, 

VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, ahri@

ahrinet.org, or http://www.ahrinet.org. 

Copies of ASHRAE standards can be 

purchased from the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 

Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, 

(404) 636–8400, ashrae@ashrae.org, or 

http://www.ashrae.org. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure 

1. Update References to Industry Standards 

to Most Current Versions 

2. Expand Capacity Range to Larger 

Capacity Equipment 

3. Include Test Methods for Continuous 

Type Ice Makers 

a. Definitions and Referenced Industry Test 

Methods 

b. Standardize Ice Hardness for Continuous 

Type Ice Makers 

c. Ice Hardness Versus Ice Quality 

d. Sub-Cooled Ice 

e. Ice Hardness Testing of Batch Type Ice 

Makers 

f. Variability of the Ice Hardness 

Measurement 

g. Perforated Containers for Continuous 

Type Ice Makers 

4. Clarify the Test Method and Reporting 

Requirements for Remote Condensing 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

5. Discontinue Use of a Clarified Energy 

Rate Calculation 

6. Test Procedure Compliance Date 

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Comment Summary and DOE Responses 

1. Test Method for Modulating Capacity 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

2. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines 

3. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy Use 

4. Measurement of Storage Bin 

Effectiveness 

5. Establishment of a Metric for Potable 

Water Used to Produce Ice 

6. Standardization of Water Hardness for 

Measurement of Potable Water Used in 

Making Ice 

7. Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers at the 

Highest Purge Setting 

8. Consideration of Space Conditioning 

Loads 

9. Burden Due to Cost of Testing 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1592 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1ASHRAE has also issued two errata sheets to 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009, issued April 8, 

2010 and April 12, 2010, respectively. These errata 

serve only to clarify equations that are part of the 

ice hardness calculation described in normative 

annex A, Table A1; they do not change the content 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’) sets forth a variety of 

provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer 

to the statute as amended through the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110– 

140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Part C of Title III, 

which was subsequently redesignated as 

Part A–1 in the U.S. Code for editorial 

reasons (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317), 

establishes an energy conservation 

program for certain industrial 

equipment. This includes automatic 

commercial ice makers, the subject of 

today’s rulemaking. 

DOE’s energy conservation program, 

established under EPCA, consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) 

labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards; and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. The testing 

requirements consist of test procedures 

that manufacturers of covered 

equipment must use (1) as the basis for 

certifying to DOE that their equipment 

complies with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted under 

EPCA; and (2) for making 

representations about the efficiency of 

those pieces of equipment. Similarly, 

DOE must use these test requirements to 

determine whether the equipment 

complies with relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6315(b), 6295(s), and 6316(a)) The 

current test procedure for automatic 

commercial ice makers appears under 

title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart H. 

EPCA prescribes that the test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers shall be the Air-Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) 

Standard 810–2003, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Automatic Commercial IceMakers.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(A)) EPCA 

also provides that if ARI Standard 810– 

2003 is revised, the Secretary of Energy 

(Secretary) shall amend the DOE test 

procedure as necessary to be consistent 

with the amended ARI Standard unless 

the Secretary determines, by rule, that to 

do so would not meet the requirements 

for test procedures set forth in EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(B)) Because ARI 

Standard 810 has been updated from the 

2003 version, DOE must amend the DOE 

test procedure to reflect these updates, 

unless doing so would not meet the 

requirements for a test procedure, as set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(7)(B)(i)) 

In addition, EPCA prescribes energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers that produce 

cube type ice with capacities between 

50 and 2,500 pounds of ice per 24-hour 

period. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) EPCA also 

requires the Secretary to review these 

standards and determine, by January 1, 

2015, whether amending the applicable 

standards is technically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)) DOE is currently 

undertaking a standards rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0037), concurrent with this test 

procedure rulemaking, to determine if 

amended standards are technically 

feasible and economically justified for 

automatic commercial ice makers 

covered by the standards set in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 

2005). In the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking, DOE is also 

proposing, under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2), 

to adopt standards for other types of ice 

makers that are not covered in 42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(1) and to expand the covered 

capacity range to ice makers with 

capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 

24 hours. In this final rule, DOE is 

amending the test procedure for 

automatic commercial ice makers to be 

consistent with the expanded scope 

being considered in the ACIM energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

In addition, EPCA requires DOE to 

conduct an evaluation of each class of 

covered equipment at least once every 

7 years to determine whether, among 

other things, to amend the test 

procedure for such equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) The review and 

amendment of the test procedure for 

automatic commercial ice makers in this 

final rule notice fulfills DOE’s obligation 

under EPCA to evaluate the test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers every 7 years. EPCA also 

requires that if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

it must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) 

B. Background 

EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, 

prescribes that the test procedure for 

automatic commercial ice makers shall 

be the ARI Standard 810–2003, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Automatic 

Commercial Ice-Makers.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(7)(A)) Pursuant to EPCA, on 

December 8, 2006, DOE published a 

final rule (the 2006 en masse final rule) 

that, among other things, adopted the 

test procedure specified in ARI 

Standard 810–2003, with a revised 

method for calculating energy use. DOE 

adopted a clarified energy use rate 

equation to specify that the energy use 

be calculated using the entire mass of 

ice produced during the testing period, 

normalized to 100 pounds of ice 

produced. 71 FR 71340, 71350 (Dec. 8, 

2006). The DOE test procedure also 

incorporated by reference the ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 (Reaffirmed 

2005) (ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 (RA 

2005)), ‘‘Method of Testing Automatic 

Ice Makers,’’ as the method of test. 

Since the publication of the 2006 en 

masse final rule, ARI merged with the 

Gas Appliance Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) to form the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) and updated its ice 

maker test procedure to reflect changes 

in the industry. The new test procedure, 

AHRI Standard 810–2007, amends the 

previous test procedure, ARI Standard 

810–2003, to: 

1. Expand the capacity range of 

covered equipment to between 50 and 

4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours at 

standard rating conditions; 

2. Provide definitions and specific test 

procedures for batch type and 

continuous type ice makers; and 

3. Provide a definition for ice 

hardness factor, which is the fraction of 

frozen ice in the ice product of 

continuous type ice machines. 

The industry test procedure being 

considered in this rulemaking, AHRI 

Standard 810–2007, references the 

previous ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29– 

1988 (RA 2005). The current DOE test 

procedure also references ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005). 

However, ASHRAE updated its test 

procedure in 2009 to ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 to include provisions 

for measuring the performance of batch 

type and continuous type ice makers.1


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1593 

or results of the test procedure. In this document, 

all subsequent references to ‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009’’ will refer to ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009, including all errata presented in 

Errata Sheets 1 and 2. 

In March 2011, AHRI published an 

addendum to AHRI Standard 810–2007, 

AHRI Standard 810 with Addendum 1. 

This addendum revised the definition of 

‘‘potable water use rate’’ and added new 

definitions of ‘‘purge or dump water’’ 

and ‘‘harvest water’’ that more 

accurately describe the water 

consumption of automatic commercial 

ice makers. This change only affects 

measurement of the potable water use of 

automatic commercial ice makers. 

Because the amended DOE test 

procedure adopted in this final rule 

does not require the measurement of 

potable water, this change does not 

impact the DOE test procedure for 

automatic commercial ice makers. 

EPCA requires that if DOE determines 

that a test procedure amendment is 

warranted, DOE must publish proposed 

test procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) 

In accordance with this requirement, 

DOE published the proposed test 

procedure amendments in the ACIM test 

procedure NOPR, which was published 

in the Federal Register on April 4, 2011. 

76 FR 18428 (April 2011 NOPR). On 

April 29, 2011, DOE held a public 

meeting (April 2011 NOPR public 

meeting) to discuss the amendments 

proposed in the April 2011 NOPR and 

provide an opportunity for interested 

parties to comment. DOE also received 

written comments from interested 

parties regarding the proposed 

amendments to the test procedure for 

automatic commercial ice makers and 

has considered both the oral comments 

received at the public meeting and the 

written comments, to the extent 

possible, when finalizing this final rule. 

These comments and DOE’s responses 

are presented in section III, Discussion. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

This final rule amends the existing 

test procedure for automatic commercial 

ice makers. Specifically, DOE is 

incorporating revisions to the DOE test 

procedure that: 

1. Update the industry test procedure 

references to AHRI Standard 810–2007 

with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009; 

2. Expand the scope of the test 

procedure to include equipment with 

capacities from 50 to 4,000 pounds of 

ice per 24 hours; 

3. Provide test methods for 

continuous type ice makers and 

standardize the measurement of energy 

and water use for continuous type ice 

makers with respect to ice hardness; 

4. Clarify the test method and 

reporting requirements for remote 

condensing automatic commercial ice 

makers designed for connection to 

remote compressor racks; and 

5. Discontinue the use of a clarified 

energy use rate calculation and instead 

calculate energy use per 100 pounds of 

ice as specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009. 

These amendments make changes to 

the definitions set forth in 10 CFR 

431.132 and to the current test 

procedures in 10 CFR 431.134. 

The amended test procedure 

established in today’s final rule will 

become effective 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

DOE believes the test procedure 

amendments adopted in today’s final 

rule will not alter the measured energy 

consumption and condenser water 

consumption of any covered equipment. 

As such, for automatic commercial ice 

makers for which energy conservation 

standards were set in EPACT 2005, use 

of the revised test procedure for 

showing compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards will be required 

starting 360 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. For equipment not 

covered by the standards set forth in 

EPACT 2005, use of the amended test 

procedure to show compliance with 

energy conservation standards will be 

required on the compliance date of any 

energy conservation standards 

established for that equipment. 

Consistent with EPCA, representations 

either in writing or in any broadcast 

advertisement respecting energy 

consumption of any automatic 

commercial ice makers covered under 

this test procedure final rule will be 

required to be made based on the 

amended test procedure starting 360 

days after publication of this final rule 

in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)(1)) For more specific 

information on DOE’s conclusion that 

the amended test procedure will not 

affect the measured energy or water 

consumption of covered equipment and 

further discussion of compliance dates, 

see the DATES section and section III.A.6 

of this document. 

III. Discussion 

Section III.A discusses all the 

revisions to the test procedure 

incorporated in this final rule and 

discusses the test procedure compliance 

date. This section also presents the 

comments received on these topics 

during the April 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in the associated comment 

period and DOE’s responses to them. 

Responses to comments addressing 

topics other than test procedure 

revisions adopted in this final rule 

appear in section III.B, which provides 

responses to comments in the following 

subject areas: 

1. Test Method for Modulating Capacity 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

2. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines 

3. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy 

Use 

4. Measurement of Storage Bin 

Effectiveness 

5. Establishment of a Metric for Potable 

Water Used in Making Ice 

6. Standardization of Water Hardness 

for Measurement of Potable Water 

Used in Making Ice 

7. Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers at 

the Highest Purge Setting 

8. Consideration of Space Conditioning 

Loads 

9. Burden Due to Cost of Testing 

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure 

Today’s final rule contains the 

following amendments to the test 

procedure in 10 CFR 431, subpart H. 

1. Update References to Industry 

Standards to Most Current Versions 

The current DOE test procedure for 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

established in the 2006 en masse final 

rule, adopts ARI Standard 810–2003 as 

the test procedure used to measure the 

energy consumption of a piece of 

equipment to establish compliance with 

energy conservation standards set in 

EPACT 2005. 71 FR at 71350 (Dec. 8, 

2006). The DOE test procedure also 

references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29– 

1988 (RA 2005). 

Since publication of the 2006 en 

masse final rule, AHRI and ASHRAE 

have published revised standards, 

namely AHRI Standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 (including Errata 

Sheets 1 and 2). AHRI Standard 810– 

2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 amend the 

previous test procedures by expanding 

the capacity range to 4,000 pounds per 

day and providing for the testing of 

continuous type ice makers. AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 with Addendum 1 

and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 

are designed to be used together to test 

automatic commercial ice makers. AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 with Addendum 1 

specifies the standard rating conditions 

and provides relevant definitions of 

equipment, scope, and calculated or 

measured values. ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29 specifies how to conduct 

the test procedure, including the 

technical requirements and calculations. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1594 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2 In the following discussion, comments will be 

presented along with a notation in the form ‘‘AHRI, 

No. 0005 at p. 23,’’ which identifies a written 

comment DOE received and included in the docket 

of this rulemaking. DOE refers to comments based 

on when the comment was submitted in the 

rulemaking process. This particular notation refers 

to a comment (1) By AHRI, (2) in document number 

0005 of the docket (available at regulations.gov), 

and (3) appearing on page 23. 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to adopt AHRI Standard 810– 

2007 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29– 

2009 as the DOE test procedure. 76 FR 

at 18431 (April 4, 2011). AHRI Standard 

810–2007 with Addendum 1 was not 

published in time for DOE to include it 

in the NOPR. At the April 2011 NOPR 

public meeting and in subsequent 

written comments, AHRI, Manitowoc 

Ice (Manitowoc), Scotsman Industries 

(Scotsman), Follett Corporation (Follett), 

and the Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (NEEA) supported this 

proposal (AHRI, No. 0005 at p. 23; 

Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 1; Scotsman, 

No. 0010 at p. 1; Follett, No. 0008 at p. 

1; NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 2) 2 Pacific Gas 

& Electric, Southern California Edison, 

San Diego Gas and Electric, and 

Southern California Gas Company, 

hereafter referred to as the California 

Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs), 

submitted a joint comment that also 

supported adopting AHRI Standard 

810–2007 and ASHRAE Standard 29– 

2009. (CA IOUs, No. 0011 at pp. 1–2) 

AHRI also recommended that DOE 

adopt AHRI standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1, pointing out that the 

addendum was added in March 2011 

and has new definitions for ‘‘dump and 

purge water’’ and ‘‘harvest water.’’ AHRI 

added that the addendum also clarifies 

how potable water usage rate is 

calculated. (AHRI, No. 0015 at p. 1) DOE 

did not receive any dissenting 

comments generally regarding reference 

to the updated industry standards, nor 

regarding AHRI Standard 810–2007 

with Addendum 1. 

DOE reviewed AHRI 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1 and determined that this 

revised version of the AHRI Standard 

810–2007 test procedure meets the 

EPCA requirements for a test procedure 

in that it is reasonably designed to 

produce test results that reflect the 

energy use of covered equipment during 

a representative cycle of use and is not 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

DOE believes AHRI Standard 810– 

2007 with Addendum 1 and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 are the 

most up-to-date and commonly used 

test procedures for automatic 

commercial ice makers in the industry 

and are the most appropriate to cover all 

equipment included in the scope of this 

rulemaking. Thus, in today’s final rule, 

DOE is updating the DOE test procedure 

for automatic commercial ice makers to 

reference the most current versions of 

the industry test procedures, AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 with Addendum 1 

and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009. 

2. Expand Capacity Range to Larger 

Capacity Equipment 

DOE’s existing test procedure 

references ARI Standard 810–2003, 

which limits the testing provisions to a 

capacity range of 50 to 2,500 pounds of 

ice per 24 hours. In AHRI Standard 810– 

2007, AHRI expanded the capacity 

range to include automatic commercial 

ice makers having a harvest capacity 

between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 

24 hours at standard rating conditions 

due to changes in the products offered 

by manufacturers. Specifically, some 

manufacturers offer larger capacity units 

that exceed the capacity range of the 

previous test procedure. AHRI’s 

expansion of the capacity range does not 

affect the way ice makers are tested; it 

only provides for the same test 

procedure to be applied to larger 

capacity ice makers. 

Consistent with referenced industry 

test procedures, DOE proposed in the 

April 2011 NOPR to expand the 

capacity range of the DOE test 

procedure to include automatic 

commercial ice makers with harvest 

rates between 50 and 4,000 pounds of 

ice per 24 hours. 76 FR at 18431 (April 

4, 2011). In response to this proposal, 

Manitowoc, AHRI, Follett, Scotsman, 

the CA IOUs, and NEEA commented 

that 50 to 4,000 pounds per day was an 

appropriate capacity range for this 

equipment. (Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 

1; AHRI, No. 0005; Follett, No. 0008 at 

p. 1; Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 1; CA 

IOUs, No. 0011 at pp. 1–2; NEEA, No. 

0013 at p. 1) Manitowoc further 

commented that there are some 

industrial applications of ice makers, at 

airports or other venues with very high 

ice consumption, but that larger 

capacity industrial-scale equipment was 

already inherently more efficient. 

(Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 26) NEEA 

commented that it is inclined to agree 

that equipment with capacities greater 

than 4,000 pounds of ice per day need 

not be included in the scope of coverage 

because, while these types of machines 

can probably be rated using the test 

procedure, environmental chamber 

issues would impose a potentially 

significant burden on manufacturers 

who are not so equipped. NEEA also 

agreed with Manitowoc that machines 

of capacities greater than 4,000 pounds 

per day are inherently at least a little 

more energy efficient per pound of ice 

produced than similar smaller 

machines. (NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 1–2) 

AHRI added that ice makers producing 

more than 4000 pounds of ice per 24 

hours are usually used in industrial 

applications that are outside the scope 

of this rulemaking, as justified by the 

EPACT 2005, which gives DOE the 

authority to develop energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers only. (AHRI, No. 

0015 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with commenters that 

4,000 pounds of ice produced per a 24 

hour period is a reasonable maximum 

capacity limit for automatic commercial 

ice makers. Consequently, DOE is 

establishing in this final rule the 

applicable capacity range of the test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers as the same capacity range 

established in AHRI 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1, namely 50 to 4,000 

pounds of ice per 24 hours. 

3. Include Test Methods for Continuous 

Type Ice Makers 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

proposed including test methods as 

defined in AHRI Standard 810–2007 

and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 

for continuous type ice makers, as well 

as an additional method to scale their 

energy consumption and water 

consumption with respect to the latent 

heat capacity contained in the ice 

compared to the latent heat capacity of 

the same mass of completely frozen ice. 

76 FR at 18432 (April 4, 2011). The 

following sections discuss DOE’s 

specific proposals, comments submitted 

by interested parties on these proposals, 

DOE’s responses, and the amendments 

DOE is adopting in today’s final rule. 

a. Definitions and Referenced Industry 

Test Methods 

AHRI Standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 have provisions that 

allow for the testing of continuous type 

ice makers. The previous versions of 

these standards, ARI Standard 810–2003 

and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 

(RA 2005), as referenced in the current 

DOE test procedure, do not include a 

method for testing continuous type ice 

makers. The revised ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 adopts definitions for 

a ‘‘continuous type ice maker’’ and a 

‘‘batch type ice maker.’’ A continuous 

type ice maker is defined as an ice 

maker that continually freezes and 

harvests ice at the same time. 

Continuous type ice makers primarily 

produce flake and nugget ice. A batch 

type ice maker is defined as an ice 

maker that has alternate freezing and 

harvesting periods, including machines 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1595 

that produce cube type ice, tube type 

ice, and fragmented ice. AHRI Standard 

810–2007 with Addendum 1 adopts the 

same definition for a continuous type 

ice maker, but refers to ice makers that 

have alternate freezing and harvesting 

periods as ‘‘cube type ice makers.’’ The 

AHRI Standard 810–2007 definition 

further clarifies that in this definition 

the word ‘‘cube’’ does not refer to the 

specific shape or size of ice produced. 

Because of this, ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 includes the 

statement that batch type ice makers are 

also referred to as cube type ice makers. 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to refer to an ice maker with 

alternate freezing and harvesting 

periods as a ‘‘batch type ice maker,’’ so 

that it is not confused with an ice maker 

that produces only cube type ice. DOE 

believes that referring to this type of ice 

maker as a ‘‘cube type ice maker’’ could 

be confusing, since not all batch type ice 

makers produce ice that fits the ‘‘cube 

type ice’’ definition established in the 

2006 en masse final rule. 71 FR at 71372 

(Dec. 8, 2006). Rather, batch type ice 

makers include, but are not limited to, 

cube type ice makers. DOE wishes to 

establish this differentiation because ice 

makers that produce cube type ice with 

capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds 

of ice per 24 hours are currently covered 

by energy conservation standards that 

are established in EPCA, while batch 

type ice makers that produce other than 

cube type ice and cube type ice makers 

with capacities between 2,500 and 4,000 

pounds of ice per 24 hours are not 

currently covered by DOE energy 

conservation standards. In the April 

2011 NOPR (76 FR at 18444 (April 4, 

2011)), DOE proposed adding 

definitions to 10 CFR 431.132 for ‘‘batch 

type ice maker,’’ which would refer to 

ice makers that alternate freezing and 

harvesting periods, and ‘‘continuous 

type ice maker, ’’ which would refer to 

ice makers that continuously freeze and 

harvest at the same time. 

In addition to these definitions, DOE 

proposed to adopt AHRI Standard 810– 

2007 as the referenced DOE test 

procedure, including referencing ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 as the 

method of test. 76 FR at 18432 (April 4, 

2011). This would expand the current 

DOE test procedure to provide a method 

for testing continuous type ice makers, 

in addition to batch type ice makers. 

At the April 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in written comments, both 

energy efficiency advocates and 

manufacturers agreed that continuous 

type ice makers should be included in 

the standards. (Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1; 

Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 1; Scotsman, 

No. 0010 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 0011 at 

pp. 1–2; NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 1) The 

CA IOUs and Manitowoc added that the 

coverage of continuous type equipment 

is important because continuous type 

machines represent up to 20 percent of 

the total market based on energy use 

today and continue to grow in market 

share; thus, establishing a test procedure 

in this rulemaking and corresponding 

energy conservation standards for these 

equipment types would ensure that 

significant energy savings are captured. 

(CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 2; Manitowoc, 

No. 0009 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees with commenters that it is 

logical and appropriate to include test 

procedures for continuous type ice 

makers in this test procedure revision. 

In today’s final rule, DOE is adopting 

definitions and test procedures for batch 

type and continuous type ice makers. 

The test procedure for testing 

continuous type ice makers will be used 

in conjunction with any potential 

energy conservation standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers that 

produce flake or nugget ice. 

To remove any uncertainty regarding 

the current applicability of standards for 

ice makers that produce cube type ice 

with capacities between 50 and 2,500 

pounds per 24 hours, DOE is slightly 

modifying the proposed definition for 

batch type ice makers, as well as adding 

language to the definition for cube type 

ice and scope in the final rule. 

Specifically, DOE is removing the 

clarification of AHRI’s definition of 

cube type ice maker in the definition of 

batch type ice maker, specifying that 

where there is inconsistency between 

AHRI and DOE’s definitions of cube 

type ice, the DOE definition takes 

precedence, and noting that all 

references to cube type ice makers in 

AHRI Standard 810–2007 shall apply to 

all batch type automatic commercial ice 

makers only. DOE believes this removes, 

to the extent possible, any potential 

ambiguity regarding the nomenclature 

and coverage of batch type ice makers 

that produce cube type ice and batch 

type ice makers that produce other than 

cube type ice (such as fragmented ice 

makers) in the DOE test procedure. DOE 

is also updating the definition for 

continuous type ice makers to be 

consistent with that adopted in AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 with Addendum 1 

and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009. 

b. Standardize Ice Hardness for 

Continuous Type Ice Makers 

Continuous type ice makers typically 

produce ice that is not completely 

frozen. This means that there is some 

liquid water content in the total mass of 

ice product produced by continuous 

type ice makers. The specific liquid 

water content can be described in terms 

of ice hardness or ice quality and is 

usually quantified in terms of percent of 

completely frozen ice in the total ice 

product. Ice quality can vary 

significantly across different continuous 

ice makers, from less than 70 percent to 

more than 100 percent. DOE 

understands that the percentage of 

liquid water in the product of 

continuous ice makers is directly related 

to the measured energy consumption of 

these machines, since more refrigeration 

is required to freeze a greater percentage 

of the ice product. 

To provide comparability and 

repeatability of results, in the April 

2011 NOPR, DOE proposed to 

standardize the energy consumption 

and condenser water use measurements 

of continuous ice makers based on the 

ratio of enthalpy reduction of the water/ 

ice product achieved in the machine 

(incoming water enthalpy less ice 

product enthalpy) to the enthalpy 

reduction that would be achieved if the 

ice were produced at 32 °F with no 

liquid water content. DOE proposed to 

base the adjustment on the ice quality 

of continuous type ice makers, as 

measured using the ‘‘Procedure for 

Determining Ice Quality’’ in section A.3 

of normative annex A in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009. DOE proposed that 

the calorimeter constant, defined and 

measured using ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009, be used to calculate 

an ‘‘ice quality adjustment factor.’’ This 

factor is a ratio of the refrigeration 

required to cool water from 70 °F to 32 

°F and freeze all of the water compared 

to the refrigeration required to cool 70 

°F water to the mixture of frozen ice and 

liquid water produced by the ice maker 

under test. The reported (adjusted) 

energy consumption would be equal to 

the ice quality adjustment factor 

multiplied by the energy consumption 

per 100 pounds of ice measured using 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009. The 

condenser water use would be adjusted 

in the same way. 76 FR at 18432–33 

(April 4, 2011). DOE did not propose 

similar adjustment for the harvest rate. 

Interested parties, including 

Manitowoc, Howe Corporation (Howe), 

and NEEA, generally supported this 

approach. (Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 

41; Howe, No. 0017 at pp. 2–3; NEEA, 

No. 0013 at p. 2) However, Scotsman 

commented that normalization of energy 

and water consumption with respect to 

ice hardness could result in selection of 

higher energy consumption products by 

the consumer because when a consumer 

fills a glass or cooler with ice, they do 

so based on the volume of space the ice 

occupies, not the cooling power it 

provides. Scotsman added that, in rating 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1596 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ice machines based on the total weight 

of the product of ice and water rather 

than just the ice content, the consumer 

gets a more accurate measurement of the 

amount of energy consumed to produce 

the nugget of ice that is in the cup or 

cooler, while ‘‘normalizing’’ to 32 °F ice 

with no water content gives a more 

accurate measure of the energy used to 

produce a certain amount of cooling 

power contained in the ice, but is not 

representative of how the ice is typically 

used. (Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 1) 

Scotsman also asked if DOE intended to 

require ice hardness reporting. 

(Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 1) 

DOE maintains that, because energy 

and condenser water consumption are 

directly related to ice hardness, 

measurement and normalization with 

respect to ice hardness is necessary to 

compare equipment from different 

manufacturers accurately. In response to 

Scotsman’s concern, DOE notes that this 

test method will not affect the 

availability of automatic commercial ice 

makers that produce lower quality ice; 

it will simply provide a method by 

which automatic commercial ice maker 

energy consumption and condenser 

water use results can be compared to a 

baseline ice quality. DOE acknowledges 

that, if consumers value total pounds of 

ice rather than the cooling that can be 

provided by the ice, the unadjusted 

energy and water consumption data may 

provide a better indication of the energy 

use per quantity valued by the 

customer. However, DOE believes that 

scaling energy and water consumption 

with respect to ice quality will result in 

more comparable values for determining 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards. The harvest rate 

of these ice makers will not be adjusted 

with respect to ice hardness. In 

addition, DOE is not considering 

changes to the certification 

requirements in this test procedure 

rulemaking. Thus, in this final rule, 

DOE is adopting the provisions 

proposed in the April 2011 NOPR to 

scale the energy and water consumption 

measured in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

29–2009 based on a ratio of the 

refrigeration required to cool water from 

70 °F to 32 °F and freeze all of the water 

compared to the refrigeration required 

to cool 70 °F water to the mixture of 

frozen ice and liquid water produced by 

the ice maker under test. 

c. Ice Hardness Versus Ice Quality 

As discussed above, DOE in the April 

2011 NOPR proposed that the 

calorimeter constant, determined using 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009, be 

used to determine an ‘‘ice quality 

adjustment factor.’’ 76 FR at 18433 

(April 4, 2011). Scotsman, Manitowoc, 

and Hoshizaki all commented that the 

term ‘‘ice quality’’ should instead be 

referred to as ‘‘ice hardness,’’ as defined 

in AHRI Standard 810–2007. (Scotsman, 

No. 0005 at p. 38; Manitowoc, No. 0005 

at p. 40; Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at pp. 44– 

45) Howe countered that ‘‘ice 

hardness,’’ as defined in the AHRI 

standard, should not be used to replace 

the proposed ‘‘ice quality’’ used in the 

ASHRAE standard because the term ‘‘ice 

hardness’’ is confusing and is a 

misstatement. (Howe, No. 0017 at p. 8) 

In response to comments from 

interested parties, DOE is using the term 

‘‘ice hardness’’ in place of the term ‘‘ice 

quality’’ throughout this rule, since it is 

defined in AHRI Standard 810–2007 

and seems to be the preferred term 

within the industry. Specifically, DOE is 

defining the ‘‘ice hardness adjustment 

factor,’’ as opposed to the previously 

defined ‘‘ice quality adjustment factor,’’ 

which will be calculated in order to 

scale energy consumption and 

condenser water use. DOE 

acknowledges Howe’s comment that 

this may cause confusion, but contends 

that the terms ‘‘ice hardness’’ and ‘‘ice 

quality’’ are used interchangeably in the 

industry, and understands the two terms 

to have the same meaning. 

d. Sub-Cooled Ice 

Just as ice makers that produce less 

than 100 percent hardness ice will use 

less energy than ice makers that produce 

100 percent 32 °F ice, ice makers that 

produce sub-cooled ice, or higher than 

100 percent hardness ice, require more 

energy to produce a given mass of ice 

product. At the April 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in subsequent written 

comments, Manitowoc, Howe, and 

NEEA all commented that the 

adjustment of energy and water 

consumption with respect to ice 

hardness should be allowed for subcooled ice as well as low hardness ice. 

(Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 42; Howe, 

No. 0005 at pp. 45–46; NEEA, No. 0013 

at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with interested parties 

that the energy content of sub-cooled ice 

should also be adjusted with respect to 

32 °F ice of 100 percent hardness. 

However, DOE notes that the 

measurement of ice hardness is not 

limited to low hardness ice and that 

quantification of the ice hardness for 

sub-cooled ice is possible using the 

adopted procedure for ice hardness 

normalization. Rather, the adopted test 

procedure already accounts for the 

additional cooling associated with 

production of sub-cooled ice. DOE 

clarifies that ice hardness testing of ice 

makers that produce sub-cooled ice can 

be conducted using the ice hardness test 

procedure adopted in today’s final rule 

and that the energy use and condenser 

water use measurements for ice makers 

that produce sub-cooled ice can and 

should be adjusted using the ice 

hardness adjustment factor. 

e. Ice Hardness Testing of Batch Type 

Ice Makers 

AHRI Standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 both specify that ice 

hardness testing is only to be performed 

for continuous type ice makers. In the 

April 2011 NOPR, DOE also proposed 

that measurement and scaling of energy 

and water consumption values based on 

ice hardness only be required for 

continuous type ice makers. 76 FR at 

18433 (April 4, 2011). 

In written comments submitted in 

response to the April 2011 NOPR, 

Follett recommended that the ice 

quality adjustment be applied to batch 

type ice makers as well as continuous 

type. (Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees with Follett that there 

would be value in requiring batch 

machines to perform the ice hardness 

measurement and scale their energy 

consumption accordingly. Testing and 

normalizing energy and water 

consumption values for ice hardness 

would account for the additional energy 

consumption of batch type commercial 

ice makers that produce sub-cooled ice 

and would allow for the most consistent 

results across all ice makers. In 

addition, some batch type automatic 

commercial ice makers may produce 

cube type ice with some liquid water 

content. DOE believes that this would 

account for the additional energy 

consumption of batch type commercial 

ice makers that produce sub-cooled ice 

and would allow for the most consistent 

results across all ice makers. However, 

DOE does not have any data or 

information regarding the existence of 

batch type ice makers that vary from 100 

percent hardness or the extent to which 

their hardness departs from 100 percent. 

DOE believes that, for most batch type 

ice makers, the ice hardness will be 

nearly 100 percent and any departure 

from 100 percent will be within the 

statistical accuracy of the ice hardness 

measurement. Lacking sound 

information, DOE is unable to justify the 

additional burden associated with 

requiring ice hardness measurement and 

scaling of energy and water 

consumption for batch type ice makers 

at this time. Thus, in today’s final rule 

DOE specifies that only continuous type 

ice makers are required to measure ice 

hardness and adjust the energy 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1597 

3Hoffman, M. Personal Communication. 

Consortium for and Energy Efficiency, Boston, MA. 

Letter to Christopher Kent, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, regarding written comments 

submitted in response to the ENERGY STAR 

Commercial Ice Machines Version 2 Draft 1 

Specification, June 11, 2011. http:// 

www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

prod_development/revisions/downloads/ 

commercial_ice_machines/ 

ACIM_Draft_1_V_2.0_Comments_-_CEE.pdf. 

consumption and condenser water use 

based on the ice hardness measurement. 

f. Variability of the Ice Hardness 

Measurement 

DOE is aware of concerns regarding 

the accuracy and repeatability of the ice 

hardness test. These concerns were 

voiced during the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY 

STAR® discussions with interested 

parties regarding revisions to the 

ENERGY STAR specification for 

automatic commercial ice makers.3 In 

written comments received during the 

comment period that followed the 

publication of the April 2011 NOPR, 

Scotsman recommended the tolerance 

for the ice hardness factor be ± 5 rather 

than ± 5 percent, as test data Scotsman 

has indicates that ± 5 percent is too tight 

when accounting for water mineral 

content, which can have a substantial 

impact on ice hardness. (Scotsman, No. 

0010 at pp. 2–3) 

As part of this rulemaking and the 

ongoing energy conservation standards 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0037), DOE conducted testing 

of ice makers, including running the ice 

hardness tests. In conducting this 

testing, DOE wished to better 

understand the source of any variability 

in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 

normative annex A. Specifically, DOE 

wished to discern the variability, if any, 

in the measurement of ice hardness that 

could be attributed specifically to 

inaccuracy in the test method, rather 

than inherent variability in the hardness 

of ice produced by a given ice maker. 

DOE determined that the fundamental 

test procedure established in ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 is sound. 

However, DOE believes that several 

areas of the test procedure are unclear 

and could be misinterpreted. This 

includes confusing nomenclature and 

references in normative annex A, as 

well as specification of the specific 

temperatures, weights, and tolerances to 

be used in the test procedure. 

DOE believes ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 normative annex A 

specifies two procedures: 

1. Section A2, ‘‘Procedure,’’ which 

specifies the calibration of the 

calorimeter device and the calculation 

of the calorimeter constant for the 

device; and 

2. Section A3, ‘‘Procedure for 

Determining Quality of Harvested Ice,’’ 

which is used to determine the ice 

hardness of a given ice maker’s ice 

product, defined as the ‘‘ice hardness 

factor’’ in AHRI Standard 810–2007 

with Addendum 1. 

DOE also believes there is confusion 

in determining the ice hardness factor of 

a given ice sample using section A3. 

AHRI Standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1 specifies that the ice 

hardness factor is the latent heat 

capacity of ice harvested in British 

thermal units per pound (Btu/lb), as 

defined in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29, 

Table A1, line 15, divided by 144 Btu/ 

lb, multiplied by 100, presented as a 

percent. DOE believes that this value 

should also be multiplied by the 

calorimeter constant, line 18 of Table 

A1, as determined in section A2 at the 

beginning of that day’s tests. This is 

equivalent to line 19 in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 Table A1, although it 

is not clear that the calibration constant 

used in line 18 is to be determined with 

seasoned block ice during the 

calibration procedure. To clarify this 

procedure, DOE will require that the ice 

hardness factor, as defined in AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 with Addendum 1, 

be calculated, except that it shall 

reference the corrected net cooling effect 

per pound of ice, line 19 of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 Table A1, 

and the calorimeter constant used in 

line 18 shall be that determined in 

section A2 using seasoned, block ice. 

The ice hardness factor will be used 

to determine an adjustment factor based 

on the energy required to cool ice from 

70 °F to 32 °F and produce a given 

amount of ice, as shown in the 

following: 

The measured energy consumption 

per 100 pounds of ice and the measured 

condenser water consumption per 100 

pounds of ice, as determined using 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009, will 

be multiplied by the ice hardness 

adjustment factor to yield the adjusted 

energy and condenser water 

consumption values, respectively. These 

values will be reported to DOE to show 

compliance with the energy 

conservation standard. 

DOE explored the variation in both 

the calibration procedure and the 

procedure for determining an ice 

maker’s ice hardness factor in laboratory 

testing. DOE hypothesized the following 

variables, which could contribute to 

variability in the test procedure: 

• How to ensure that ice is 

‘‘seasoned’’ 

• Thermal conductivity and specific 

heat of bucket 

• Frequency and timing of calibration 

• Vigorousness of ice stirring 

• Location of temperature sensor in 

the ice bucket 

• Variation in ambient conditions 

• Difference between water 

temperature and ambient air 

temperature 

• Time allowed between production 

of ice and initiation of ice hardness test 

DOE conducted testing to determine 

the significance of these variables on the 

calorimeter constant result. DOE 

believes standardization and tolerances 

are important because otherwise there is 

no indicator of how close a 

measurement must be to the specified 

value in order to comply with the test 

procedure. 

In section A2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009, which specifies the 

calibration procedure for the 

calorimeter, DOE found that the type of 

‘‘seasoned’’ ice used significantly 

affected the calibration of the device, 

but that variation of all other factors 

examined did not have a significant 

effect provided they were maintained 

within a reasonable range. DOE believes 

‘‘seasoned’’ ice is ice that is 32 °F 

throughout with as little entrained water 

as possible. A single block of seasoned 

ice is used to minimize the amount of 

water on the surface of the ice due to the 

low surface area to volume ratio. If 

multiple, smaller cubes are used, and 

seasoned in the same manner, it is much 

more difficult to ensure that the surface 

liquid is removed so that a calorimeter 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULESER11JA12.045</GPH>
1598 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

constant of less than 1.02 can be 

obtained. 

DOE believes the calorimeter constant 

should be viewed as a calibration 

constant that is representative of the 

specific heat of the calorimeter device. 

This calorimeter constant shall not be 

greater than 1.02 when determined with 

seasoned block ice. This limit 

establishes that the calorimetry 

procedure is being performed correctly 

and all equipment is accurately 

calibrated. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 

normative annex A specifies the 

temperature difference between the air 

and water, the weight of water, and the 

weight of ice, but does not specify 

acceptable tolerances for any of these 

parameters. For example, ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 normative 

annex A does not specify an initial 

water temperature or ambient air 

temperature. Instead, the initial water 

temperature is specified as 20 °F above 

room temperature. Also, this 

temperature differential does not have 

an associated tolerance. Similarly, the 

weights to determine the calorimeter 

constant in section A2, 30 pounds of 

water and 6 pounds of ice, do not have 

specified tolerances. 

DOE found that changes in the 

ambient temperature, the temperature 

difference between the air and water, 

the weight of ice, and the weight of 

water did not affect the calorimeter 

constant significantly. However, DOE 

still must specify tolerances in order to 

ensure compliance with the test 

procedure. As such, DOE assumes the 

tolerances specified in section 6 of 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009, 

‘‘Test Methods,’’ also apply to the 

normative annex, namely water and air 

temperature shall be within 1 °F of the 

specified value and the measured 

weights of ice and water shall be within 

± 2 percent of the quantity measured. 

DOE believes that the ice hardness 

measurement should be conducted at 

the same ambient temperature as the 

other testing, namely 70 °F. This will 

increase the accuracy and repeatability 

of the measurement. DOE believes that 

a temperature differential of 20 °F is 

appropriate, as it minimizes heat flow 

into and out of the water. DOE does not 

believe maintaining 70 °F ± 1 °F ambient 

air temperature and obtaining 90 °F ± 1 

°F initial water temperature will be 

burdensome for manufacturers as it is 

commensurate with the ambient 

requirements already called for in the 

energy consumption and condenser 

water consumption test, and 90 °F water 

is easily attainable from a standard 

water heater. As such, DOE is clarifying 

in today’s final rule that normative 

annex A of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

29–2009 shall be performed at 70 °F ± 1 

°F ambient air temperature with an 

initial water temperature of 90 °F ± 1 °F 

and weights shall be accurate to within 

±2 percent of the quantity measured. 

With these changes and assumptions, 

DOE was able to produce a repeatable 

calorimeter constant measurement of 

less than 1.02 when testing using 

seasoned ice. While there may be 

variations in ice hardness inherent to 

the machine, for given hardness of ice, 

DOE was able to produce ice hardness 

results that agree within 1.3 percent. 

In response to Scotsman’s comment 

regarding tolerances of the ice hardness 

factor, as defined in AHRI Standard 

810–2007 with Addendum 1, DOE 

believes that ±5 percent variability for a 

given basic model should be sufficient 

given the data DOE has collected on ice 

hardness measurements. DOE does not 

have data to validate the need for or 

support the development of a different 

tolerance for the ice hardness of 

continuous type ice makers. The 

variance on the ice hardness factor is 

only relevant to the extent that it 

impacts the calculation of energy 

consumption or condenser water use. 

With respect to the reported energy and 

condenser water use, manufacturers 

must meet DOE’s certification, 

compliance, and enforcement (CCE) 

regulations for automatic commercial 

ice makers, which established the 

relevant sampling plans and tolerances 

for the certified ratings of energy and 

water consumption values. 76 FR 12422 

(March 7, 2011). 

In summary, DOE believes there is 

sufficient accuracy and precision in the 

test procedure for determining ice 

hardness prescribed in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 normative annex A, 

with the exception that the test shall be 

conducted at an ambient air temperature 

of 70 °F ± 1 °F, with an initial water 

temperature of 90 °F ± 1 °F, and weights 

shall be accurate to within ± 2 percent 

of the quantity measured. DOE believes 

adding these specifications and 

tolerances will allow for greater 

repeatability and standardization 

without significant additional burden 

on manufacturers. All other potential 

sources of variability were found to not 

significantly affect the calculated ice 

hardness. 

g. Perforated Containers for Continuous 

Type Ice Makers 

As mentioned previously, continuous 

type ice makers produce ice that is not 

100 percent frozen and contains some 

liquid water. In the current industry test 

procedures, a non-perforated container 

is used to capture the ice product so that 

all of the ice/water mixture is included 

in the harvest rate and the ice hardness 

measurement. 

At the April 2011 NOPR public 

meeting, Howe commented that the 

container that is used for continuous ice 

should be a perforated container rather 

than a solid container to remove chilled 

water that is not usable ice from the test 

procedure process. (Howe, No. 0005 at 

p. 48) Howe noted that, beyond 

beverage dispensing, there is no useful 

application for the cooled liquid water 

content of low hardness ice. (Howe, No. 

0005 at p. 56) Scotsman and Hoshizaki 

commented that when consumers use 

ice, they usually do so based on volume 

of both ice and water, so there is value 

in both the water and the ice portion. 

(Scotsman, No. 0005 at p. 39; Hoshizaki, 

No. 0005 at p. 45) Manitowoc provided 

the example of low quality ice being 

useful in beverage dispensers and 

packing fish. (Manitowoc, No. 0005 at 

pp. 55–56) 

In response to Howe’s suggestion that 

perforated containers be used for 

continuous type ice makers, Scotsman 

commented that it may not be practical 

to use a perforated container to capture 

continuous ice because the liquid water 

is infused in the ice and it takes a long 

time for it to drain out, and the ice 

would melt over that period. (Scotsman, 

No. 0005 at pp. 50–51) Hoshizaki noted 

that with a perforated container the size 

of the perforations would need to be 

defined because very small bits of ice, 

called ‘‘dust ice,’’ may fall through the 

perforations, causing a loss of good 

quality ice. (Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at p. 

51) Hoshizaki added that the 

calorimetry test already accounts for the 

differences between low hardness ice 

and high hardness ice. (Hoshizaki, No. 

0005 at pp. 51–52) Manitowoc agreed 

with Hoshizaki with respect to the 

calorimetry test being sufficient to 

differentiate low hardness and high 

hardness ice. (Manitowoc, No. 0005 at 

p. 52) NEEA commented that a 

perforated basket should not be required 

for continuous type ice makers because 

only a fraction of the product that is not 

fully hardened (chilled water) will 

escape the matrix of the hardened 

product in a reasonable period. In 

addition, NEEA commented that this 

would introduce an unfortunate degree 

of test complexity and variability in the 

results and that any improvement in the 

product accounting should be worth 

this additional complexity and 

variability. (NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 2) 

DOE believes that, as Manitowoc, 

Scotsman, and Hoshizaki stated, there is 

clear value and customer utility in the 

liquid water content of low hardness ice 

and that this should be measured as part 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1599 

of the ice product when determining the 

harvest rate. DOE also believes that the 

proposed procedure for adjusting energy 

and water consumption measurements 

with respect to ice hardness, defined in 

section III.A.3.b, is sufficient to describe 

the differences between ice with 

different amounts of water content. 

Further, if a perforated container were 

used for testing continuous type ice 

makers, this would not be representative 

of the ‘‘ice product’’ consumers receive 

and expect. DOE is not requiring testing 

of continuous type ice makers with a 

perforated container in today’s final rule 

and instead is maintaining the industryaccepted method of testing continuous 

type ice makers with a non-perforated 

container to measure harvest rate and 

test for ice hardness. 

4. Clarify the Test Method and 

Reporting Requirements for Remote 

Condensing Automatic Commercial Ice 

Makers 

EPCA establishes energy conservation 

standards for two types of remote 

condensing automatic commercial ice 

makers: (1) Remote condensing (but not 

remote compressor) and (2) remote 

condensing and remote compressor. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) Remote condensing 

(but not remote compressor) ice makers 

are sold and operated with a dedicated 

remote condenser that is in a separate 

section from the ice-making mechanism 

and compressor. Remote condensing 

and remote compressor automatic 

commercial ice makers may be operated 

with a dedicated remote condensing 

unit or connected to a remote 

compressor rack. Units designed for 

connection to a compressor rack may 

also be sold with dedicated condensing 

units, but some rack-connection units 

are sold only for rack connection, 

without a dedicated refrigeration 

system. The energy use of such 

equipment is often reported without 

including the compressor or condenser 

energy use, since manufacturers 

generally do not have a compressor rack 

at their disposal for testing purposes. In 

the April 2011 NOPR, DOE proposed 

that remote condensing ice makers that 

are designed to be used with a remote 

condensing rack would be tested with a 

sufficiently sized dedicated remote 

condensing unit. This approach was 

proposed to ensure that ratings for such 

equipment represent all of the energy 

use incurred by such machines for 

making ice, including the compressor 

and condenser energy use. 76 FR at 

18433–34 (April 4, 2011). 

Howe, Manitowoc, NEEA, Follett, CA 

IOUs, and the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) all agreed with 

DOE’s proposal to test remote 

condensing ice makers designed to be 

connected to a remote condensing rack 

using dedicated remote condensing 

units and reporting the energy 

consumption of the ice-making 

mechanism, condenser, and compressor. 

(Howe, No. 0005 at p. 63; Manitowoc, 

No. 0005 at p. 64; NEEA, No. 0005 at p. 

64; Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1; CA IOUs, 

No. 0011 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 

1) Earthjustice and NRDC both 

recommended that DOE provide clear 

guidance on how to select a remote 

condensing unit to pair with a given ice 

maker for such a test. (Earthjustice, No. 

0005 at p. 75; NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 1) 

However, the CA IOUs and NEEA 

commented that, given that ice 

production performance is closely tied 

to the refrigerant system specifications, 

as manifested in the ice-making head, 

manufacturers will likely select 

compressor/condenser components that 

are properly matched to the 

requirements of the balance of the 

system, since any significant deviation 

from this would likely change ice 

production performance and adversely 

affect the energy performance rating of 

the system. (CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 2; 

NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 2–3) NEEA 

suggested that one possible guideline for 

selecting the balance-of-system 

components might simply be to require 

that the ice-making head be tested with 

the compressor/condenser components 

that would be shipped with it if sold 

with a dedicated condenser; however, 

NEEA also commented that this is a 

minor issue. (NEEA, No. 0013 at 

pp. 2–3) 

Hoshizaki stated that, generally, a 

rack unit ice machine is similar in 

construction to other ice machines that 

are designed to be paired with a remote 

condensing unit, but that is not 

necessarily the case every time. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at p. 67) Hoshizaki 

continued that it does not have a 

condensing unit designed for use with 

its largest rack unit machine and it 

would have to develop such a 

condensing unit to test the ice maker as 

proposed. (Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at pp. 

67–68) Scotsman stated that it also 

manufactures products that are meant to 

be connected to rack systems for which 

it does not offer a dedicated condensing 

unit, and that it would be problematic 

for Scotsman to develop a companion 

condensing unit for it. Scotsman added 

that such a rating would be arbitrary 

because it would not represent what 

was actually sold. (Scotsman, No. 0005 

at pp. 72–73) Scotsman recommended 

that only the power of the ice-making 

mechanism should be reported for units 

that do not have matched dedicated 

condensing units, because reporting 

power for the condensing units for those 

machines would require manufacturers 

to either design and build or purchase 

a condenser that would never be offered 

for sale. (Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 2) 

Manitowoc agreed that, in most 

situations, manufacturers will use the 

same basic evaporator section and 

controls for both a parallel rack and 

remote condensing/compressor, so the 

inclusion of the remote system with a 

dedicated condensing unit will 

effectively cover the testing and 

regulation of the majority of automatic 

commercial ice machines, even if they 

are matched to a parallel rack system. 

Manitowoc recommended that the test 

method only include matched remote 

condensing systems with a designated 

condensing unit, and that any 

evaporator section that is sold only for 

application with a remote parallel rack 

is outside of the scope of the 

regulations. (Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 

2) Howe stated that many of the units 

it manufactures are designed solely for 

use with remote, field-built refrigeration 

systems, and it does not have 

condensing units available to test these 

units. Howe contended that this would 

leave them and other small 

manufacturers with no choice but to 

discontinue models, thus decreasing 

sales and severely harming their 

financial viability. (Howe, No. 0017 at 

pp. 4–5) 

DOE believes that testing all remote 

condensing and remote compressor 

automatic commercial ice makers that 

are designed to be connected to a remote 

compressor rack with a sufficiently 

sized dedicated remote condensing unit 

will adequately represent the energy 

consumption of this equipment without 

introducing undue burden. DOE notes 

that typically a remote condensing and 

compressor ice maker is designed to be 

paired with only one type of dedicated 

condensing unit and agrees with 

interested parties that manufacturers 

will be encouraged to test the ice maker 

using this paring as it will ensure the ice 

maker operates most efficiently. Thus, 

DOE does not believe further 

specification as to the pairing of remote 

condensing and remote compressor icemaking mechanisms and dedicated 

remote condensing units is required. For 

remote condensing and remote 

compressor ice makers that can be sold 

either with a matched dedicated 

condensing unit or for connection to a 

remote compressor rack, this method 

provides a straightforward and 

consistent way to compare the 

performance of remote condensing and 

remote compressor ice makers. Even 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

though DOE believes that the dedicated 

condensing unit and ice maker will be 

a unique combination and further 

specificity in the test procedure is 

unnecessary, DOE notes that the ratings 

for each basic model must be based on 

the least efficient individual model 

combination. 

For remote condensing and remote 

compressor ice makers that are never 

sold with a dedicated condensing unit, 

DOE considered Manitowoc’s comment 

that ice makers designed only for 

connection to remote compressor racks 

are out of the scope of the regulations. 

DOE concurs with this comment, 

finding that these units are inconsistent 

with the definition of ‘‘automatic 

commercial ice maker’’ in EPCA. EPCA 

defines an automatic commercial ice 

maker as ‘‘a factory-made assembly (not 

necessarily shipped in one package) 

that—(1) consists of a condensing unit 

and ice-making section operating as an 

integrated unit, with means for making 

and harvesting ice.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6311(19)) Because remote condensing 

automatic commercial ice makers that 

are solely designed to be connected to 

a remote rack are not sold or 

manufactured with a condensing unit, 

they do not meet the definition of an 

automatic commercial ice maker under 

the statute. Hence, the test procedure 

final rule does not address such 

products. DOE notes that remote 

condensing automatic commercial ice 

makers designed to be connected to a 

remote rack constitute a small market 

share and are typically more efficient 

than similar, smaller capacity ice 

makers. DOE also notes that there is 

interest by manufacturers and the 

ENERGY STAR program for DOE to 

provide a test method for these types of 

systems. Consequently, DOE will 

address testing of remote condensing 

automatic commercial ice makers 

designed to be connected to a remote 

rack in its ENERGY STAR test 

procedure development process, which 

is separate from this rulemaking. 

In summary, DOE clarifies in this 

final rule that remote condensing 

automatic commercial ice makers that 

are sold exclusively to be connected to 

remote compressor racks do not meet 

the definition of an automatic 

commercial ice maker set forth under 42 

U.S.C. 6311(19) and, as such, are not 

subject to DOE regulations. 

DOE further notes that ice makers that 

could be connected to remote 

compressor racks but are also sold with 

dedicated condensing units are covered 

by DOE regulations in their 

configuration when sold with dedicated 

condensing units. 

5. Discontinue Use of a Clarified Energy 

Rate Calculation 

The current DOE test procedure 

references ARI Standard 810–2003, with 

an amended calculation for determining 

the energy consumption rate for the 

purposes of compliance with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards. ARI 

Standard 810–2003 references ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005) 

as the method of test for this equipment, 

including the equations for calculating 

the energy consumption rate per 100 

pounds of ice produced. In the 2006 en 

masse proposed rule, DOE found the 

language in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

29–1988 (RA 2005) unclear and 

proposed that the energy consumption 

rate be normalized to 100 pounds of ice 

instead and be determined as shown in 

the following equation. 71 FR at 71350 

(Dec. 8, 2006). 

At the September 2006 public meeting 

for the 2006 en masse proposed rule, 

ARI supported DOE’s proposal to adopt 

ARI Standard 810–2003 as the test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers with the revised energy use rate 

equation. However, ARI further stated 

that the ARI and ASHRAE standards 

have been used without the 

clarification. (Docket No. EE–RM/TP– 

05–500, ARI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 18.8 at pp. 45–46) 

The equation contained in ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005), 

as adopted, directs that the energy 

consumption shall be calculated as the 

weight of ice produced during three 

specified time periods divided by the 

power consumed during those same 

three time periods. The specified time 

periods are defined as three complete 

cycles for batch type ice makers and 

three 14.4-minute periods for 

continuous type ice makers. The 

verbatim equation from ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005) is as 

follows: 

In the above equation, ‘‘kWh/100 lb 

ice’’ refers to the desired energy 

consumption rate normalized per 100 

pounds of ice produced; 8.2a refers to 

the data to be recorded for the capacity 

test, specifically weight in pounds of ice 

produced for three prescribed periods of 

collection; and 8.4a refers to the section 

of the standard that describes the data 

to be recorded for the calculation of 

energy consumption, specifically the 

energy input in kilowatt-hours for the 

same periods prescribed for 

measurement of capacity. This equation 

did not change in the update of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005) 

to the most recent ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009. 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

concluded that the procedure specified 

in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 is 

clear and unambiguous. As a result, 

DOE proposed to remove the 

clarification for the calculation of 

energy consumption rate in this 

rulemaking. 76 FR at 18434–35 (April 4, 

2011). AHRI, NEEA, Manitowoc, Follett, 

Hoshizaki, and Scotsman all supported 

DOE’s proposal to remove the 

calculation for energy consumption. 

(AHRI, No. 0015 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 0013 

at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 3; 

Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1; Hoshizaki, No. 

0005 at p. 93; Scotsman, No. 0005 at 

p. 93) 

DOE believes the ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 test procedure clearly 

states that the mass of ice collected will 

be recorded for each of the three 

complete periods specified. ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 also states 

that the power consumption will be 

recorded for the same three periods. 

DOE believes that this statement is clear 

and does not provide opportunity for 

misinterpretation. Additionally, DOE 

acknowledges that this method may 

show more consistency in the average 

energy use rate calculation and, further, 

is the method typically used in industry 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULESER11JA12.046</GPH> ER11JA12.047</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1601 

today. In this final rule, DOE is 

removing the language that clarifies the 

calculation of energy consumption rate. 

6. Test Procedure Compliance Date 

EPCA, as amended, requires that any 

amended test procedures for automatic 

commercial ice makers shall comply 

with section 6293(e) of the same title (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(C)), which in turn 

prescribes that if any rulemaking 

amends a test procedure, DOE must 

determine ‘‘to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

measured energy efficiency * * * of 

any covered product as determined 

under the existing test procedure.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) Further, if DOE 

determines that the amended test 

procedure would alter the measured 

efficiency of a covered product, DOE 

must amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard accordingly. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6293(e), 

DOE evaluated the amended test 

procedure, as adopted in today’s final 

rule, to determine if it will affect the 

measured energy efficiency of a covered 

piece of equipment determined under 

the existing test procedure. DOE 

believes that the amendments set forth 

in today’s final rule will not change the 

measured energy consumption of any 

covered piece of equipment. The 

reasoning for this determination is set 

forth in the following section. 

When the revised ACIM test 

procedure final rule goes into effect, 30 

days from today’s publication in the 

Federal Register, the energy 

conservation standards set in EPACT 

2005 for automatic commercial ice 

makers that produce cube type ice of 

capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds 

of ice per 24 hours will be in effect. DOE 

believes that the only test procedure 

amendments adopted in this final rule 

applicable to automatic commercial ice 

makers covered under EPACT 2005 

standards are those that update the 

references to industry test procedures to 

their most current versions and 

discontinue the use of a clarified energy 

use rate equation. DOE believes that 

these amendments would not 

significantly affect the measured energy 

or water use of equipment for which 

standards are currently in place. 

The amendment that updates the 

references to industry test procedures to 

their most current versions is not 

anticipated to affect the measured 

energy consumption or condenser water 

use of covered equipment determined 

by DOE’s existing test procedure. The 

updated industry test procedures, AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 with Addendum 1 

and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009, 

primarily expand the test procedure to 

continuous type ice makers and ice 

makers with capacities up to 4,000 

pounds of ice per 24 hours, which does 

not affect the test procedure for ice 

makers that make cube type ice with 

capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds 

of ice per 24 hours. AHRI Standard 810– 

2007 with Addendum 1 revised the 

definition of ‘‘potable water use rate’’ 

and added new definitions of ‘‘purge or 

dump water’’ and ‘‘harvest water’’ that 

more accurately describe the water 

consumption of automatic commercial 

ice makers. This change only affects 

measurement of the potable water use of 

automatic commercial ice makers and, 

as such, does not impact the DOE test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers. The amendment that 

discontinues the use of the clarified 

energy use rate equation is primarily 

editorial and does not fundamentally 

affect the way automatic commercial ice 

makers are tested. These amendments 

are described in more detail in sections 

III.A.1 and III.A.5. DOE notes that if 

manufacturers test a given basic model 

using the amended test procedure and 

find it results in a more consumptive 

rating than its certified value, they are 

required to recertify the given basic 

model with the Department. 

In this final rule, DOE also adopts 

other test procedure amendments that 

are only applicable to types of automatic 

commercial ice makers for which energy 

conservation standards do not currently 

exist. In the concurrent ACIM energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0037), DOE is considering establishing 

energy conservation standards for batch 

type and continuous type ice makers 

with capacities up to 4,000 pounds of 

ice per 24 hours. This includes new 

energy conservation standards for batch 

type ice makers that produce cube type 

ice with capacities between 2,500 and 

4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours, batch 

type ice makers that produce other than 

cube type ice with capacities between 

50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 

hours, and continuous type ice makers 

with capacities between 50 and 4,000 

pounds of ice per 24 hours. Because 

there currently are no standards for the 

aforementioned types of ice makers, 42 

U.S.C. 6293(e) does not apply to test 

procedure amendments that affect only 

those equipment types. 

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Comment Summary and DOE Responses 

At the April 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in the ensuing comment 

period, DOE received comments from 

interested parties that were in response 

to issues discussed in the ACIM test 

procedure proposed rulemaking, but 

which are not among the amendments 

discussed above and included in this 

final rule. The additional matters on 

which DOE received comments are as 

follows: 

1. Test Method for Modulating Capacity 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

2. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines 

3. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy 

Use 

4. Measurement of Storage Bin 

Effectiveness 

5. Establishment of a Metric for Potable 

Water Used in Making Ice 

6. Standardization of Water Hardness 

for Measurement of Potable Water 

Used in Making Ice 

7. Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers at 

the Highest Purge Setting 

8. Consideration of Space Conditioning 

Loads 

9. Burden Due to Cost of Testing 

This section discusses these 

comments and DOE’s responses to them. 

1. Test Method for Modulating Capacity 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

An ice maker could theoretically be 

designed for multiple capacity levels, 

either using a single compressor capable 

of multiple or variable capacities, or 

using multiple compressors. This may 

be advantageous since ice makers 

operate at full capacity for only a small 

portion of the time, if at all. Such a 

system could potentially produce ice 

more efficiently when operating at a low 

capacity level because there would be 

more heat exchanger surface area 

available relative to the mass flow of 

refrigerant, which would reduce 

temperature differences in the heat 

exchangers and result in operation of 

the compressor with lower pressure lift. 

DOE is not aware of any evidence that 

such a system has been sold or tested 

anywhere in the world. However, the 

basic concept is illustrated by the 

current use of different capacity models 

using the same heat exchangers with 

different capacity compressors. For such 

product pairs, the lower capacity 

machine is generally more efficient. 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

proposed an optional test procedure to 

measure energy and water use of 

variable or multiple capacity systems. 

The proposed procedure involved 

measuring energy use in kilowatt-hours 

per 100 pounds of ice and water use in 

gallons per 100 pounds of ice of at least 

two production rates and calculating 

weighted average energy use and water 

use values. DOE proposed that, for 

modulating capacity systems, testing 

would be done at the maximum and 

minimum capacity settings. These 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1602 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4At the Framework Document public meeting, 

Manitowoc mentioned that standby energy use due 

to sensors could represent an electrical load as high 

as 10 watts in some units. (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0037, Manitowoc Ice, No. 0016 at p. 143) 

values would then be averaged to 

determine the energy consumption and 

condenser water consumption of the ice 

maker. DOE proposed equal weighting 

of the measurements at different 

capacities (as represented by the 

average) and requested information and 

data that might be used to develop a 

weighting scheme more representative 

of field use. 76 FR at 18434 (April 4, 

2011). 

At the April 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in subsequent written 

comments, interested parties all agreed 

that DOE was premature in establishing 

test procedures for a technology that 

was not on the market, or even in 

development, and that DOE should wait 

until there is more information about 

how these machines would function 

before establishing a test procedure. 

(AHRI, No. 0005 at p. 85; Scotsman, No. 

0010 at p. 2; NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 1; 

NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 3; Howe, No. 0017 

at p. 5) NRDC and NEEA offered that 

manufacturers are free in the future to 

seek waivers from established test 

procedures if and when they need to do 

so to certify such a product complies 

with DOE’s energy conservation 

standards. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 1; 

NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 3) NEEA also 

offered to consider acquiring some ice 

maker end-use metering data to 

determine ice maker duty cycles to shed 

some light on how to weight tested 

energy use values in the future. (NEEA, 

No. 0013 at p. 3) 

DOE acknowledges the comments of 

interested parties and concedes that 

incorporating a method for 

accommodating modulating capacity ice 

makers may be premature, since 

modulating capacity ice makers 

currently do not exist and there is 

limited information about how such 

equipment would function. DOE will 

not incorporate a test method for testing 

automatic commercial ice makers at 

multiple capacity ranges at this time. If 

a manufacturer develops such an ice 

maker, DOE encourages that 

manufacturer to follow the test 

procedure waiver process in 10 CFR 

431.401. 

2. Treatment of Tube Type Ice Machines 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to clarify in the DOE test 

procedure that tube and other batch 

technologies can be tested by the 

current industry test procedures using 

the batch type test method. 76 FR at 

18436 (April 4, 2011). Scotsman, 

Manitowoc, and Follett supported 

DOE’s approach of treating all non-cube 

batch type ice makers consistently using 

the test procedure for batch type ice 

makers. (Scotsman, No. 0005 at p. 97; 

Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 97; Follett, 

No. 0008 at p. 1) The CA IOUs asked 

DOE to clarify in the DOE test procedure 

that tube, cracked, and other batch type 

technologies will be included by the 

proposed DOE definitions and test 

method. (CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with the comments from 

Scotsman, Manitowoc, and Follett 

regarding categorization of tube type ice 

machines, and finds that tube type 

machines can be tested under the 

currently available test procedures. 

Therefore, DOE is clarifying in the DOE 

test procedure that tube and other batch 

technologies can be tested by the 

current industry test procedures using 

the batch type test method. DOE will 

treat all batch type machines, as defined 

previously in the proposed rule, the 

same. This will include tube type, cube 

type, and other batch type automatic 

commercial ice makers. 

3. Quantification of Auxiliary Energy 

Use 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE referred 

to energy consumed when an ice maker 

is not producing ice as auxiliary energy 

consumption. 76 FR at 18436 (April 4, 

2011). DOE also noted that the 

magnitude of this energy use is less than 

one percent of the total daily ice maker’s 

energy consumption, assuming typical 

auxiliary power levels and ice maker 

duty cycle (i.e. portion of time in a day 

that the ice maker produces ice). Thus, 

DOE did not propose incorporating the 

measurement of auxiliary energy use in 

the test procedure since DOE could not 

find economic justification in the 

potential energy savings generated when 

considering the additional test 

procedure burden associated with 

auxiliary power testing. 76 FR at 18436 

(April 4, 2011). 

Follett, Scotsman, and the CA IOUs 

supported DOE’s determination that an 

additional test procedure to quantify 

auxiliary energy consumption is not 

justified. (Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 3; 

Follett, No. 0008 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 

0011 at p. 2) Manitowoc agreed with 

DOE’s finding that auxiliary energy use 

represents an insignificant contribution 

to the total energy consumption of a 

commercial ice machine.4 Manitowoc 

further stated that any attempt to 

incorporate these minor standby losses 

would require definition of the 

percentage of time the ice machine is 

operating in a typical installation, 

would require laboratories to measure 

power consumption at levels below 1 

percent of operating input power, and in 

the end would at most change the 

energy efficiency value for the machine 

by an amount well below the tolerances 

allowed in the reference test standards. 

(Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 3) 

Manitowoc added that there actually is 

no auxiliary energy consumption in an 

automatic commercial ice maker, since 

ice makers are all electrically powered 

and all of the electricity use is measured 

while they operate during a test. 

(Manitowoc, No. 0005 at pp. 109–110) 

The CA IOUs and NEEA stated that, 

based on the definition of standby (i.e., 

connected to a power source and not 

performing any of its primary 

functions), DOE should call this mode 

‘‘standby mode’’ instead of ‘‘auxiliary 

mode.’’ (CA IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 2; 

NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 3–4) 

AHRI agreed with DOE’s conclusion 

that the auxiliary energy use during the 

non-ice-making period is very small and 

that its quantification is not justified. 

AHRI offered that ‘‘standby mode’’ 

energy consumption represents a very 

small portion of the energy usage and is 

negligible. AHRI also stated that EPCA 

does not give DOE the authority to 

regulate ‘‘standby mode’’ and ‘‘off 

mode’’ energy for commercial 

equipment because section 42 U.S.C. 

6295 of EPCA, as amended by EISA 

2007, specifically deals with consumer 

products (i.e., residential equipment) 

and not commercial equipment. (AHRI, 

No. 0015 at p. 3) 

NRDC and Earthjustice disagreed with 

AHRI and commented that the statutory 

direction regarding standby for 

consumer products requires that it be 

considered for implementation when 

test procedures for consumer products 

are revised, but that this does not 

preclude DOE from considering standby 

or other aspects of auxiliary energy use 

in commercial products. (NRDC, No. 

0005 at p. 107; Earthjustice, No. 0014 at 

p. 1) Earthjustice also noted that, 

although Congress did not specifically 

mandate the development of standby 

and off mode energy consumption 

metrics for commercial equipment, 10 

watts is consistent with the baseline 

levels of standby energy consumption 

that Congress considered significant 

enough to merit regulation in residential 

products. Earthjustice pointed to 73 FR 

62052 (Oct. 17, 2008), where baseline 

standby power for microwave ovens was 

given as 4 watts, and 75 FR 64627 (Oct. 

20, 2010), where baseline standby and 

off mode electricity consumption of 

furnaces was given as ranging from 2 to 

10 watts. Earthjustice added that, even 

if measuring and regulating the 

between-cycle energy consumption of 

ice makers would at best reduce the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1603 

total energy consumption of this 

equipment by no more than 1 percent, 

promulgating ice maker standards that 

fail to capture these energy savings, if 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, would be 

inconsistent with EPCA’s direction to 

maximize energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Earthjustice also stated 

that including provisions in the test 

procedure to measure the energy 

consumption of ice makers in between 

ice-producing cycles is needed to 

comport with the EPCA requirement 

that test procedures accurately depict 

real-world energy consumption (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)), as the consumers of 

this equipment are unlikely to unplug 

their ice makers when the ice storage 

bin is full. (Earthjustice, No. 0014 

at p. 1) 

NRDC and NEEA both recommended 

that DOE incorporate a measure of 

auxiliary energy use into the test 

procedure, as consumption levels as 

high as 10 watts certainly warrant 

measurement, and incorporate this 

measure into the efficiency standard if 

justified. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 2; 

NEEA, No. 0005 at p. 99) NEEA also 

stated that this energy consumption 

should be called ‘‘standby energy 

consumption,’’ and disagreed that the 

measurement of standby energy use 

represents anything more than a minor 

additional testing burden, as the 

equipment required to measure it 

precisely is inexpensive and the test, as 

spelled out in International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

62301, is simple to conduct. (NEEA, No. 

0013 at pp. 3–4) 

DOE agrees with commenters that 

auxiliary energy use could also be 

referred to as standby energy 

consumption. DOE has been unable, 

however, to collect sufficient 

information regarding standby mode 

energy use to support the promulgation 

of a standby mode test procedure within 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

4. Measurement of Storage Bin 

Effectiveness 

A common metric used to quantify ice 

meltage in the ice storage bin is storage 

bin effectiveness. Storage bin 

effectiveness is defined as a theoretical 

expression of the fraction of ice that 

under specific rating conditions would 

be expected to remain in the ice storage 

bin 24 hours after it is produced, stated 

as a percentage of total ice deposited in 

the bin. AHRI has a standard, AHRI 

820–2000, that describes a test method 

for quantifying the effectiveness of ice 

storage bins. This method, or a similar 

method, is also used in the Canadian 

and Australian test procedures for 

automatic commercial ice makers to 

quantify ice storage bin effectiveness. 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE stated 

that, while quantifying the additional 

energy use associated with ice storage 

losses could contribute to additional 

energy savings, doing so would result in 

an inconsistency between the standards 

for self-contained and remote 

condensing ice makers or ice-making 

heads because DOE would only be 

addressing the ice storage losses 

associated with the storage bins that are 

shipped with the ice making mechanism 

from the point of manufacturer (i.e., selfcontained ice makers). Consequently 

DOE noted that there could be an 

increased burden resulting from testing 

for storage bin effectiveness for 

manufacturers of self-contained units 

only. DOE proposed, for these reasons, 

to not include a quantification of 

meltage in the storage bin in this 

rulemaking. 76 FR at 18436 (April 4, 

2011). 

Howe, Manitowoc, Hoshizaki, and 

Scotsman commented that ice storage 

bins are typically not specified by the 

manufacturer, are separate devices, have 

different lifetimes, and can be paired 

with one automatic commercial ice 

machine in many different 

combinations based on a variety of enduser requirements. These manufacturers 

all contended that it would be difficult 

to include ice storage bins as a part of 

the test procedure for ice-making 

equipment, and testing all possible 

combinations would be excessively 

burdensome and costly for all 

manufacturers. (Howe, No. 0017 at p. 4; 

Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 3; Hoshizaki, 

No. 0005 at pp. 124–125; Scotsman, No. 

0010 at p. 3) Howe further commented 

that ice storage bins are often sold 

separately from the automatic 

commercial ice makers, and many small 

manufacturers only produce ice storage 

bins, not ice machines. (Howe, No. 0017 

at p. 4) In addition, Howe, Follett, and 

Manitowoc all commented that ice 

storage bin efficiencies are outside the 

scope of this proposed rule and 

suggested that if a test procedure for ice 

storage bin effectiveness is established, 

it should be separate from the ACIM test 

procedure. (Howe, No. 0017 at p. 4; 

Follett, No. 0008 at p. 1; Manitowoc, No. 

0005 at p. 116) AHRI expressed its 

opinion that DOE lacks the authority to 

regulate the effectiveness of storage bins 

because EPACT 2005 only addresses the 

energy consumption of commercial ice 

makers and nothing else. (AHRI, No. 

0015 at p. 2) 

Earthjustice commented that there is 

precedent for DOE to adopt test 

procedures and standards for products 

that account for such indirect forms of 

energy consumption. (Earthjustice, No. 

0014 at p. 2) Earthjustice further 

commented that the statute’s definition 

of automatic commercial ice maker 

states that an automatic commercial ice 

maker may include a means for storing 

ice, dispensing ice, or storing and 

dispensing ice. Earthjustice added that 

while Congress did not establish 

standards applicable to the storage of 

ice, it did provide DOE with a 

requirement to amend standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers, and if 

storage is a part of the ice maker, clearly 

the Department has the authority. 

(Earthjustice, No. 0005 at p. 119) NRDC 

and the Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) commented that DOE 

should not preclude coverage of storage 

bins in the standards rulemaking by not 

covering them in the test procedure. 

(NRDC, No. 0005 at p. 119; ASAP, No. 

0005 at p. 129) The CA IOUs, NEEA, 

and NRDC recommended that the 

Department include a measure of ice 

storage bin effectiveness in the test 

procedure, applicable to units shipped 

with an integral bin, since ineffective 

storage contributes to additional energy 

use, condenser water use, and potable 

water use for a given end-user demand 

for finished ice. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 

2; NEEA, No. 0005 at p. 124; CA IOUs, 

No. 0011 at p. 3) NRDC and NEEA 

further stated that the concern over 

additional test burden is misguided 

given that an AHRI test method for 

quantifying the effectiveness of storage 

bins has long been available and 

Canadian standards already require 

manufacturers to conduct this test. 

(NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 

0005 at p. 124) NEEA further stated that 

it sees no problem in measuring storage 

bin effectiveness only for self-contained 

equipment, as there are other test 

procedure inconsistencies between 

classes already and this one is 

appropriate to the equipment. In 

response to manufacturer comments 

that one ice-making head may be 

shipped with any one of a number of 

storage bins, NEEA offered that a 

separate efficiency metric for the storage 

bins could easily work in practice. 

(NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 4) 

While DOE acknowledges 

stakeholders’ concerns regarding storage 

bin effectiveness, DOE has determined 

that it will not pursue a measure for 

storage bin effectiveness at this time. 

Many ice makers (ice-making heads and 

remote compressing ice makers) can be 

paired with any number of storage bins, 

often produced by other manufacturers, 

and are typically paired in the field 

upon installation. In these cases, the 

effectiveness of such storage bins is 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1604 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

beyond the control of the manufacturer 

of the ice making head or remote 

compressing ice maker. 

Furthermore, if DOE were to regulate 

self-contained ice makers only, it could 

disincentivize the manufacturing of 

such devices, effectively eliminating a 

feature (built-in ice storage bins). See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). In order to avoid this 

outcome, DOE is choosing not to 

regulate self-contained ice makers only. 

Therefore, DOE believes it would be 

more consistent to promulgate test 

procedures and subsequent standards 

for ice storage bins and the bins of selfcontained ice makers at the same time. 

Due to market complexities inherent in 

the pairing of ice makers and storage 

bins, DOE is declining to include a 

quantification of meltage in the storage 

bin as part of this rulemaking. 

5. Establishment of a Metric for Potable 

Water Used To Produce Ice 

The current DOE energy conservation 

standard for automatic commercial ice 

makers established metrics of energy 

use per 100 pounds of ice for all 

equipment classes, and condenser water 

use per 100 pounds of ice produced for 

water-cooled models only. However, 

automatic commercial ice makers 

consume potable water to produce ice as 

well. AHRI Standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1 defines ‘‘potable water use 

rate’’ as the amount of potable water 

used in making ice, including ‘‘dump or 

purge water’’ and ‘‘harvest water.’’ AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 with Addendum 1 

defines ‘‘dump or purge water’’ as the 

water from the ice-making process that 

was not frozen at the end of the freeze 

cycle and is discharged from a batch 

type automatic commercial ice maker 

and ‘‘harvest water’’ as the water that 

has been collected with the ice used to 

measure the machine’s capacity. 

Including potable water used to 

produce ice in the overall water metric 

could produce significant water savings 

and additional energy savings. The 

current EPA ENERGY STAR standard 

for automatic ice makers limits water 

use in air-cooled machines to less than 

25 gallons per 100 pounds of ice for 

remote condensing automatic 

commercial ice makers and 35 gallons 

per 100 pounds of ice for self-contained 

equipment.5 In addition, both the 

previously referenced ARI Standard 

810–2003 and the updated AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 with Addendum 1 

provide a test method to measure the 

amount of water used in making ice in 

units of gallons per 100 pounds of ice. 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE stated 

that it had examined the statutory 

authority in EPCA for the establishment 

of test procedures and energy and water 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers and determined 

that the Department does not have a 

direct mandate from Congress to 

regulate potable water use under 42 

U.S.C. 6313. Therefore, in the April 

2011 NOPR, DOE proposed not to 

regulate potable water used in making 

ice in this rulemaking. 76 FR at 18437 

(April 4, 2011). 

AHRI commented that potable water 

consumption information is already 

available in the AHRI online database, 

which is publicly available, and 

recommended against requiring potable 

water testing in the DOE test procedure 

due to the increased burden of meeting 

DOE’s CCE regulations. (AHRI, No. 0005 

at pp. 139–140) AHRI, Follett, and 

Scotsman agreed that potable water use 

should not be regulated as part of this 

rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 0015 at pp. 3– 

4; Follett, No. 0008 at p. 2; Scotsman, 

No. 0010 at p. 3) Manitowoc added that, 

for continuous type machines, 

essentially all potable water is 

converted to ice product, so there is no 

significant variation among available 

models; and for batch machines, potable 

water use is related to energy efficiency, 

which drives manufacturers to 

minimize potable water use in achieving 

higher energy efficiency. Manitowoc 

also offered that, depending on the 

design of the batch ice machine, there 

is an optimum range where further 

reduction in potable water use can 

dramatically affect the reliability of the 

ice machine and the quality of the ice 

that it produces, and stated that 

establishing regulations on potable 

water use without understanding these 

limits and trade-offs could significantly 

affect life-cycle cost to the end user. 

(Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 3) 

Conversely, Howe contended that 

there should be a calculation for potable 

water use in ice machines because 

chilled waste water is currently 

collected along with ice and is included 

in the measured production capacity of 

some ice machines, while waste water is 

ignored in other machines. (Howe, No. 

0005 at p. 132; Howe, No. 0005 at pp. 

145–146) Howe also contended that this 

requirement should apply to batch type 

and continuous type ice machines. 

(Howe, No. 0017 at pp. 5–6) 

NEEA and NRDC stated that 

establishing a measurement for potable 

water in the test procedure would be 

beneficial, but that standards for potable 

water consumption may not be required. 

(NEEA, No. 0005 at pp. 136–137; NRDC, 

No. 0005 at p. 135) The CA IOUs, 

NRDC, and NEEA recommended that 

DOE adopt in this test procedure 

rulemaking the test method to measure 

potable water as outlined in the AHRI/ 

ASHRAE standards, and disagreed with 

DOE regarding the Department’s 

authority to regulate potable water, as 

prescribed in EPCA. (CA IOUs, No. 0011 

at p. 3; NRDC, No. 0012 at p.2; NEEA, 

No. 0013 at pp. 4–5) The CA IOUs, ICF 

International (ICF), and NEEA further 

stated that the potable water use of more 

than half of commercial ice makers 

shipped in the United States is currently 

being measured and reported by 

manufacturers for ENERGY STAR 

qualification and, as such, adding a 

method to measure the potable water 

use should not significantly increase the 

testing burden for manufacturers. (CA 

IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 3; ICF, No. 0005 at 

p. 141; NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 4–5) 

Earthjustice, NEEA, and NRDC 

commented that, although Congress has 

not directly instructed the Department 

to regulate potable water use, DOE has 

the authority to do so in accordance 

with the purposes of EPCA and with 

Congress’ intent to achieve energy 

savings by regulating automatic 

commercial ice makers. Earthjustice and 

NRDC also stated that the reporting of 

potable water consumption data would 

be valuable in its own right for 

specifiers, end users, and water supply 

utilities. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 2; NEEA, 

No. 0013 at pp. 4–5; Earthjustice, No. 

0005 at p. 150) 

Earthjustice also responded to DOE’s 

interpretation that the footnote to the 

table at 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) suggests 

that Congress specifically considered 

potable water use, and excluded it. 

(Earthjustice, No. 0005 at p. 132) 

Earthjustice claimed that DOE’s 

admission that EPCA has left a ‘‘gray 

area’’ surrounding the Department’s 

authority to adopt potable water 

standards for ice makers suggests that 

DOE views this issue as one of 

interpreting an ambiguous statute—an 

activity in which courts grant 

substantial deference to the executive 

branch. Earthjustice pointed to Chevron 

v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984), 

as the controlling precedent. 

Earthjustice stated that it would be 

unreasonable to conclude that Congress 

intended to prohibit DOE from adopting 

potable water standards for ice makers, 

as the note following the table in 42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) by its own terms 

applies only to the initial standards 

codified in EPACT 2005, and had 

Congress intended to restrict DOE’s 

authority to adopt water consumption 

standards encompassing potable water 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1605 

use, it could have easily provided that 

DOE is only authorized to adopt revised 

energy use and condenser water use 

standards. Instead, argued Earthjustice, 

the fact that Congress clarified the 

inapplicability of the EPACT 2005 

standards to potable water consumption 

but did not enact express language to 

similarly limit DOE’s authority in 

subsequent rulemakings indicates that 

DOE is authorized to require the 

measurement and regulation of potable 

water consumption. (Earthjustice, No. 

0014 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE acknowledges the commenters’ 

concerns regarding the coverage of 

potable water consumption in the ACIM 

test procedure. Regarding DOE’s 

authority to promulgate an ACIM test 

procedure addressing potable water use, 

DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. 6313(d) does 

not require DOE to develop a water 

conservation test procedure or standard 

for potable water use in cube type ice 

makers or other automatic commercial 

ice makers. Rather, it sets forth energy 

and condenser water use standards for 

cube type ice makers at 42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(1), and allows, but does not 

require, the Secretary to issue analogous 

standards for other types of automatic 

commercial ice makers under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(2). 

Ambiguous statutory language may 

lead to multiple interpretations in the 

development of regulations. As the U.S. 

Supreme Court has held, ‘‘[i]f [a] statute 

is ambiguous on [a] point, we defer 

* * * to the agency’s interpretation so 

long as the construction is ‘a reasonable 

policy choice for the agency to make.’ ’’ 

Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. 

Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 

986 (2005) (quoting Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 

v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 

U.S. 837, 845 (1984)). DOE believes that 

it is unclear whether the footnote on 

potable water use that appears in 42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) has a controlling effect 

on 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3). Potable water use is not 

referenced anywhere else in 42 U.S.C. 

6313(d), and thus it is difficult to 

determine whether this footnote is a 

clarification or a mandate in regard to 

cube type ice makers, and furthermore, 

whether it would apply to the regulation 

of other types of automatic commercial 

ice makers. Without a clear mandate 

from Congress on potable water use 

generally, and given that Congress chose 

not to regulate potable water use for 

cube type ice makers by statute, DOE 

exercises its discretion in choosing not 

to include potable water use in its test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers. 

While there is generally a positive 

relationship between energy use and 

potable water use, DOE understands 

that at a certain point the relationship 

between potable water use and energy 

consumption reverses due to scaling. 

Based on this fact, and given the added 

complexity inherent to the regulation of 

potable water use and the concomitant 

burden on commercial ice maker 

manufacturers, DOE will not regulate or 

require testing and reporting of the 

potable water use of automatic 

commercial ice makers at this time. 

Although AHRI Standard 810–2007 

with Addendum 1 already includes a 

measurement of potable water 

consumption, and reporting of potable 

water use is required by the ENERGY 

STAR program, neither performance of 

AHRI Standard 810–2007 nor 

participation in the ENERGY STAR 

program is mandatory. Because DOE test 

procedures are mandatory for all 

equipment sold in the United States, 

DOE must be more cognizant of burden 

and the limitation of products or 

features when determining the test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards for covered equipment. 

Earthjustice, NRDC, and NEEA noted 

that among the stated purposes of EPCA, 

as amended by EPACT 1992, is the 

conservation of water in certain 

plumbing products and appliances 

under 42 U.S.C. 6201(8). (Earthjustice, 

No. 0014 at pp. 2–3; NRDC, No. 0012 at 

p.2; NEEA, No. 0013 at pp. 4–5) At the 

time of its adoption, the language of 42 

U.S.C. 6201(8) supported DOE’s 

regulation of water use efficiency in 

plumbing products such as 

showerheads, faucets, water closets, and 

urinals. Congress added the regulation 

of automatic commercial ice makers 

later, in EPACT 2005. Given that 

Congress often amends portions of 

statutes in subsequent legislation, courts 

have had to examine how to interpret 

unchanged parts of the statute in light 

of amended sections of the same statute. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that 

‘‘a specific policy embodied in a later 

Federal statute should control 

construction of the earlier statute.’’ Food 

& Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson 

Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 143 

(2000). Congress set forth the general 

purposes of its energy and water 

conservation program for appliances in 

42 U.S.C. 6201, but later established 

more specific requirements for certain 

products, including automatic 

commercial ice makers. In EPACT 2005, 

Congress required DOE to issue 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers, but excluded consideration of 

potable water use. Earthjustice noted 

that DOE currently regulates water use 

in residential clothes washers 

(Earthjustice, No. 0014 at pp. 2–3), but 

again, this is not controlled by 42 U.S.C. 

6201(8). DOE did not regulate water use 

for residential clothes washers under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(g) until directed to by 

Congress in EISA 2007, section 

311(a)(2). Thus, DOE chooses today to 

interpret 42 U.S.C. 6201(8) consistently 

with how it has interpreted the 

provision in the past: as a general 

guiding principle that is implemented 

through provisions within EPACT 1992 

and subsequent amendments for 

specific products and equipment. 

In summary, DOE is using its 

discretion to not cover potable water in 

this rulemaking to limit the burden on 

manufacturers, especially considering 

that standards for potable water do not 

currently exist and are not being 

considered in the concurrent ACIM 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0037). 

6. Standardization of Water Hardness 

for Measurement of Potable Water Used 

in Making Ice 

Differences in water hardness can 

cause ice machines to use more or less 

energy and water. Harder water has a 

greater concentration of total dissolved 

solids and chemical ions, which affects 

the thermal properties of the water. 

Harder water depresses the freezing 

temperature of water and results in 

increased energy use to produce the 

same quantity of ice. In addition, harder 

water requires a higher purge setting to 

prevent scaling and a decrease in ice 

clarity. While DOE recognizes that 

differences in water hardness can affect 

the energy and water consumption of an 

automatic commercial ice maker, DOE 

believes that there is still uncertainty in 

the causal relationship between total 

dissolved solids, ion concentration, and 

ice maker performance. Given the 

uncertainty in the relationship between 

water hardness and water and energy 

consumption, DOE proposed in the 

April 2011 NOPR not to standardize 

water hardness in the test procedure, 

but requested additional data that 

would support evaluation of the need 

for a standardized water hardness test. 

Specifically, DOE requested additional 

data or information regarding (1) The 

relationship between total dissolved 

solids, ion concentration, and energy 

and water use; (2) the magnitude of 

these effects; and (3) specific testing 

methodologies that would produce 

repeatable results. 76 FR at 18437 (April 

4, 2011). 

Manitowoc, Follett, and NEEA 

supported DOE’s recommendation to 

not bring water hardness into the 

rulemaking. (Manitowoc, No. 0005 at p. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1606 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

154; Follett, No. 0008 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 

0013 at p. 5) Manitowoc and NEEA 

agreed that water hardness or quality 

has a greater effect on reliability and 

maintenance than it does on energy 

efficiency of commercial ice makers and 

felt it would be a significant effort to 

properly define and obtain ‘‘standard 

hardness’’ water for testing purposes. 

(Manitowoc, No. 0009 at p. 3; NEEA, 

No. 0013 at p. 5) Scotsman suggested 

that, if water hardness were indeed a 

significant factor in energy 

consumption, it would become apparent 

in the certification and enforcement 

actions related to the equipment and the 

Department could move to standardize 

it at that time, after DOE had collected 

more information. (Scotsman, No. 0005 

at pp. 158–159) Scotsman also offered 

that it knows anecdotally that water 

hardness will impact the hardness of 

flake and nugget ice, but does not have 

data at this time to present a correlation. 

(Scotsman, No. 0010 at p. 3) NRDC 

suggested that the Department consider 

a range of acceptable water hardness 

values as a condition for the test 

procedure. (NRDC, No. 0005 at p. 154) 

Hoshizaki suggested that if DOE 

considers a band of water hardness 

values that are acceptable to test within, 

it should make sure that water of a value 

within the band is geographically 

available everywhere across the United 

States. (Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at p. 162) 

DOE appreciates interested parties’ 

comments and agrees that there is still 

uncertainty in the causal relationship 

between total dissolved solids, ion 

concentration, and ice maker 

performance. Specifically, it is not clear 

whether total dissolved solids or ion 

concentration is more significant in 

impacting the energy performance of an 

ice maker. DOE did not receive any 

additional data that would suggest the 

proper test procedure specifications for 

water hardness. As such, DOE maintains 

that an appropriate standardized water 

hardness for use in a test procedure 

cannot be accurately specified at this 

time, and even if it could, applying such 

a test procedure would increase the 

testing burden for manufacturers. In 

addition, the primary effect of 

increasing water hardness would be 

increased potable water used in making 

ice. This is because the potential for 

scale formation increases with higher 

water hardness, requiring an increase in 

the dump water used in batch type ice 

machines that produce cube type ice. 

Since DOE is not addressing potable 

water in this rulemaking, DOE is not 

standardizing water hardness in the test 

procedure at this time, but requests 

additional data that would support 

evaluation of the need for a 

standardized water hardness test. 

7. Testing of Batch Type Ice Makers at 

the Highest Purge Setting 

At the energy conservation standard 

Framework document public meeting, 

ASAP cautioned that installers may 

install cube type ice makers with a 

purge setting in the highest water use 

position, which may substantially 

increase water consumption in the field 

compared to the manufacturer tested 

water consumption. (Docket No. EERE– 

2010–BT–STD–0037, ASAP, No. 0013 at 

p. 16) DOE does not have data to 

validate these claims and believes that 

the manufacturer-specified purge setting 

is how ice makers are meant to be 

installed in the field. Also, as DOE did 

not propose to regulate potable water 

used in making ice in the April 2011 

NOPR, DOE did not believe it was 

justified to require testing of automatic 

commercial ice makers at the highest 

purge setting. Instead, DOE proposed to 

continue to require testing of automatic 

commercial ice makers in accordance 

with AHRI 810–2007 and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009. DOE also 

committed to investigate the magnitude 

and effects of this issue by gathering 

data related to national water hardness, 

the difference between manufacturer 

recommended and maximum purge 

settings, and the way ice makers are 

typically installed in the field. 76 FR at 

18437–38 (April 4, 2011). 

In commenting on the April 2011 

NOPR, Manitowoc, Hoshizaki, and 

Follett supported the current AHRI and 

industry practice to test ice makers at 

the water purge setting as instructed in 

the manufacturer’s installation and 

operation manual for ‘‘normal’’ quality 

potable water. (Manitowoc, No. 0009 at 

p. 4; Hoshizaki, No. 0005 at p. 165; 

Follett, No. 0008 at p. 2) Scotsman 

suggested that if DOE were going to 

consider a standard that included 

variability in the level of purge, testing 

should be done at both a maximum 

flush level setting and a minimum flush 

level setting, to give manufacturers 

credit for water conserving purge 

options. (Scotsman, No. 0005 at p. 167) 

NRDC commented that both energy 

and water consumption can vary 

considerably across the range of fieldadjustable purge settings, ±3 percent for 

energy consumption and ±20 percent for 

potable water consumption, and 

recommended that ice makers be tested 

in their highest water consumption 

purge setting. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs agreed that DOE should 

require testing of ice makers at the purge 

setting that uses the most water. (CA 

IOUs, No. 0011 at p. 4) NEEA 

commented that the specification to test 

ice machines with the ‘‘as shipped’’ 

purge setting would lead to all units 

being shipped in the minimum purge 

mode, resulting in very unrepresentative 

potable water use measurements. NEEA 

cautioned that this would violate the 

spirit, if not the letter, of 42 U.S.C. 

6214(a)(2). (NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 5) 

NEEA and NRDC stated that the 

Department’s proposal simply to allow 

manufacturers to specify the purge 

setting for testing purposes fails to 

maintain the integrity of the testing 

process and reduces the incentive to 

innovate in this area of machine 

performance. (NRDC, No. 0012 at p. 2; 

NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 5) Howe stated 

that, in order to standardize energy 

consumption and water usage, it is 

necessary to test at the highest purge 

setting, especially because energy usage 

increases as the purge setting increases. 

(Howe, No. 0017 at p. 6) 

Although both AHRI 810–2007 and 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 

require that the ice makers be set up 

pursuant to the manufacturer’s 

instruction, DOE acknowledges that this 

may not capture the maximum potable 

water consumption of the unit or, 

perhaps, the most common water 

consumption setting of the unit. DOE 

found that the manufacturers 

recommended purge setting is typically 

an intermediate purge setting which is 

adequate for most parts of the U.S. Also, 

DOE found that some manufacturers 

who offered adjustable purge settings 

offered low purge settings, in addition 

to high purge settings, to conserve water 

in those places with low water 

hardness. 

However, DOE has found no data or 

information related to how ice makers 

are currently installed in the field. 

Further, all previous test data are from 

tests conducted at this default test 

setting, and requiring testing at another 

level will make historical comparisons 

difficult and significantly increase the 

testing burden for all manufacturers, 

since manufacturers would be required 

to recertify all their models using the 

new test procedure. Also, changes in 

purge setting most strongly affect 

potable water consumption and affect 

energy use to a lesser degree. As DOE 

will not regulate potable water used in 

making ice in this rulemaking, and the 

preponderance of previous data come 

from tests conducted at the 

manufacturer recommended purge 

setting, DOE will require testing of 

automatic commercial ice makers in 

accordance with AHRI 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009 in this final rule and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1607 

6U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Preliminary 

Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment: Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment, Chapter 2: Analytical Framework, 

Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE 

Responses. March 2011. Washington, DC http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/cre_pa_

tsd_ch2_analytical_framework.pdf. 

7Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings 

Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial 

Refrigeration, Final Report. 2009. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, DC 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

publications/pdfs/corporate/commercial_refrig_

report_10-09.pdf. 

will not further specify the required 

purge setting. 

8. Consideration of Space Conditioning 

Loads 

In written comments submitted in 

response to the April 2011 NOPR, Howe 

commented that the majority of aircooled self-contained automatic 

commercial ice makers are located 

within air conditioned spaces (e.g., 

motels/hotels, restaurants, bars, retail 

food markets, institutions, and airports). 

Howe opined that the total heat 

rejection of the automatic commercial 

ice maker, including the heat removed 

at the evaporator, heat related to 

suction-cooled hermetic and semihermetic compressors, and the fan/ 

motor efficiency related heat, should be 

tested and published so that consulting 

engineers can accurately calculate the 

sensible heat gain to the air conditioned 

space. 

Howe illustrated, saying a 970 pound 

per 24 hour output automatic 

commercial ice maker located in a 70 °F 

space supplied with 50 °F water adds 

the total rejected heat of 8,450 Btu to the 

space, which must be removed by the 

building cooling system, while the 

energy consumption of this automatic 

commercial ice maker is 3.8 kWh per 

100 pounds of ice. The energy 

consumed by the building cooling 

system to remove this sensible internal 

heat gain to the conditioned space is 

estimated to be 0.85 kWh, or 22 percent 

of the energy consumed by the ice 

maker in question. Howe also stated that 

no intermediate cooling is required if 

this heat is rejected directly to outdoor 

air and provided the four examples of 

water cooled condensers, remote air 

cooled condensers, remote dedicated 

split condensing units, and an ice 

machine that is field-connected to a 

remote compressor rack (field-built 

refrigeration system) that serves other 

evaporators throughout the building. 

(Howe, No. 0017 at pp. 8–9) 

DOE acknowledges that the total 

rejection of heat indoors for air-cooled 

self-contained and ice-making head 

automatic commercial ice makers may 

impact space cooling loads, but DOE 

expects changes from revised and new 

ice maker standards to be negligible. In 

chapter 2 of the preliminary technical 

support document for commercial 

refrigeration equipment that DOE 

published on March 30, 2011, DOE 

determined that the effect of efficiency 

improvements in self-contained 

commercial refrigeration equipment on 

space conditioning loads was 

negligible.6 DOE expects the impact of 

efficiency improvements in automatic 

commercial ice makers to be less than 

that of commercial refrigeration 

equipment because there are typically 

fewer automatic commercial ice makers 

per building.7 In addition, there is a 

high degree of variability in the impact 

of this rejected heat on the total building 

heating and cooling load due to 

differences in weather, building size, 

and building type. In cold climates, the 

additional heat rejected by the ice maker 

may decrease building space heating 

loads. Moreover, requiring testing and 

reporting of the total heat rejection of 

automatic commercial ice makers would 

increase the testing and reporting 

burden for self-contained and icemaking head equipment. DOE does not 

believe this increase in testing burden 

for some ice makers is justified given 

the magnitude of impact ice makers are 

expected to have on space conditioning 

loads. Manufacturers may publish total 

heat rejection information and engineers 

may request this information when it is 

required, but DOE does not believe it 

will be required in all cases and, further, 

believes that it is not relevant to DOE’s 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers. DOE is not including testing or 

reporting for total heat rejection of 

automatic commercial ice makers in this 

final rule. 

9. Burden Due to Cost of Testing 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered equipment. 

EPCA requires that the test procedures 

promulgated by DOE be reasonably 

designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of the 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle. EPCA 

also requires that the test procedure not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

At the April 2011 NOPR public 

meeting and in subsequent written 

comments, many interested parties 

commented on the burden of testing for 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers. AHRI commented that the 

issue of regulatory burden is not 

associated with conducting the test 

itself, but with DOE’s CCE requirements. 

AHRI emphasized that, accounting for 

DOE’s CCE requirements, the cost to 

comply with the Federal standard 

would be 10 or 100 times what DOE 

projected. (AHRI, No. 0005 at p. 179) 

AHRI suggested that alternative energy 

determination methods, although not 

currently available for ice makers, could 

be developed to help manufacturers 

comply with DOE’s regulations and 

reduce the burden on manufacturers. 

(AHRI, No. 0005 at p. 180) 

Howe commented that, using DOE 

calculations of the cost of testing, the 

cost to Howe would range from 

$620,000 to $930,000 in the first year, 

and stated that this amount vastly 

exceeds what would be reasonable for a 

small manufacturer to absorb. Howe 

further commented that the costs of 

testing for small manufacturers as 

estimated in the NOPR are significantly 

understated for several reasons, 

including the fact that small 

manufacturers typically produce large, 

custom equipment that they are unable 

to test in current test facilities. Howe 

suggested that manufacturers of remote 

automatic commercial ice machines be 

allowed to test the most commonly sold 

remote ice maker configuration (ice 

maker, compressor, and condenser) for 

each productive capacity of automatic 

commercial ice maker and apply those 

energy consumption ratings to similar 

remote automatic commercial ice 

makers of the same productive capacity. 

(Howe, No. 0017 at pp. 6–8) 

Conversely, NEEA contended that the 

testing required by AHRI Standards 810 

and 820 is not overly burdensome to 

conduct, even including tests for 

potable water use and standby energy 

consumption. NEEA further stated that 

the tests proposed by the Department, 

along with a test for potable water 

consumption, standby energy use, and 

storage bin effectiveness, seem to be the 

minimum required to fully characterize 

the energy and water use of these 

products, and are the same tests that the 

manufacturers are already doing, 

whether it be for Canadian standards, 

ENERGY STAR, or AHRI product 

listings. (NEEA, No. 0013 at p. 5) 

DOE notes that this final rule 

addresses only the incremental burden 

of the test procedure changes. DOE does 

not believe these test procedure 

amendments will significantly increase 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1608 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the burden on manufacturers, and the 

amended test procedure is the minimum 

required to fully characterize and 

compare the performance of automatic 

commercial ice makers. DOE maintains 

that it is not possible to further limit the 

burden within the test procedure and 

still meet the requirements of EPCA that 

the test procedure be representative of 

ice maker performance during a typical 

period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

The purpose of this assessment of the 

burden of testing is to identify the 

changes in burden arising solely from 

the proposed changes in the test 

procedure. DOE acknowledges that 

other recent rulemakings also impact 

the overall burden on manufacturers to 

test and certify equipment for 

compliance with DOE’s Appliances and 

Commercial Equipment Standards 

program. In the final rule DOE 

published on March 7, 2011, which 

established certification, compliance, 

and enforcement regulations for covered 

equipment (the CCE final rule), DOE 

established requirements for 

determining the number of units that 

must be tested and for designing a 

sampling plan for reliable testing. 76 FR 

at 12422. Currently, manufacturers must 

test a minimum of two units of each 

basic model to arrive at the maximum 

energy use rating for that basic model, 

unless otherwise specified. 76 FR at 

12480 (March 7, 2011). Due to issues 

raised by some manufacturers of larger, 

custom equipment, including automatic 

commercial ice makers, on June 22, 

2011 DOE published a revised final rule 

establishing new compliance dates for 

certification of automatic commercial 

ice makers, which is 18 months from 

publication in the Federal Register. 76 

FR 38287 (June 30, 2011). DOE notes 

that the CCE final rule published March 

7, 2011 is only applicable to automatic 

commercial ice makers for which 

standards were set in EPACT 2005, 

namely automatic commercial ice 

makers that produce cube type ice with 

capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds 

of ice per 24 hours. For other types of 

ice makers covered under this test 

procedure final rule, CCE requirements 

have not yet been established and will 

be considered in a separate rulemaking. 

DOE acknowledges manufacturers’ 

concerns about the burden associated 

with the overall testing and certification 

of automatic commercial ice makers. To 

help reduce test burden on 

manufacturers of low production 

volume, such as highly customized 

equipment like automatic commercial 

ice makers, DOE is considering 

alternative energy determination 

methods or alternative rating methods 

for automatic commercial ice makers. 

DOE recently issued a request for 

information on this issue. 76 FR 21673 

(April 18, 2011). 

In response to Howe’s comment, this 

test procedure rulemaking does not 

describe sampling plans or define basic 

model requirements for automatic 

commercial ice makers, because that 

information is in the CCE final rule. 

DOE notes that the CCE final rule 

establishes basic model definitions that 

allow manufacturers to group individual 

models with similar, but not exactly the 

same, energy performance 

characteristics into a basic model for 

purposes of fulfilling the Department’s 

testing and certification requirements. 

The Department encourages 

manufacturers to group similar 

individual models as they would in 

current industry practice, provided all 

models identified in a certification 

report as being the same basic model 

have the same certified efficiency rating. 

The CCE final rule also establishes that 

the efficiency rating of a basic model 

must be based on the least efficient or 

most energy consuming individual 

model, or, put another way, all 

individual models within a basic model 

must be at least as good as the certified 

rating. The regulations also require 

certification of a new basic model if a 

modification results in an increase in 

energy or water consumption beyond 

the rated amount. 76 FR at 12428–29 

(March 7, 2011). 

The specific burden on small 

manufacturers is discussed in DOE’s 

revised final regulatory flexibility 

analysis, which can be found in section 

IV.B of this document. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, 

this action was not subject to review 

under the Executive Order by the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) whenever an agency is 

required to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking. When an agency 

promulgates a final rule after being 

required to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the agency must 

prepare a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis (FRFA). The requirement to 

prepare these analyses does not apply to 

any proposed or final rule if the agency 

certifies that the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If the agency 

makes such a certification, the agency 

must publish the certification in the 

Federal Register along with the factual 

basis for such certification. 

As required by Executive Order 

13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 

53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, so that the potential impacts of its 

rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking 

process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 

procedures and policies available on the 

Office of the General Counsel’s Web 

site: http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed the proposed rule to 

amend the test procedure for automatic 

commercial ice makers under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. DOE 

certified that the proposed rule, if 

adopted, would not result in a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. DOE received 

comments on the economic impacts of 

the test procedure and responds to these 

comments in section III.B.9. After 

consideration of these comments, DOE 

continues to certify that the test 

procedure amendments set forth in 

today’s final rule will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis for this certification is set forth 

below. 

For manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has set a 

size threshold, which defines those 

entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ 

for the purposes of the statute. DOE 

used the SBA’s size standards published 

on January 31, 1996, as amended, to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be required to comply with the 

rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The 

standards are listed by North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code and industry description and are 

available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/ 

default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

ACIM manufacturers are classified 

under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 750 employees or less for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1609 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

DOE conducted a market survey using 

all available public information to 

identify potential small manufacturers 

who could be impacted by today’s final 

rule. DOE reviewed industry trade 

association membership directories 

(including the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)), 

product databases (e.g., Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC), the Thomas 

Register, California Energy Commission 

(CEC) and ENERGY STAR databases), 

individual company Web sites, and 

marketing research tools (e.g., Dun and 

Bradstreet reports) to create a list of 

companies that manufacture or sell 

automatic commercial ice makers 

covered by this rulemaking. DOE 

reviewed this data to determine whether 

the entities met the SBA’s definition of 

a small business and manufactured 

automatic commercial ice makers. DOE 

screened out companies that do not 

offer products covered by this 

rulemaking, do not meet the definition 

of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign 

owned and operated. 

DOE initially identified 24 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers available in the United 

States. Of these 24 companies, 10 were 

determined to be foreign owned or have 

more than 750 employees, meaning that 

they would not qualify as small 

businesses. Of the remaining 14 entities, 

5 manufacture ice makers for residential 

uses and 1 has filed for bankruptcy. 

Thus, DOE identified 8 manufacturers 

that produce covered automatic 

commercial ice makers and can be 

considered small businesses. 

Table IV.1 stratifies the small 

businesses according to their number of 

employees. The smallest company has 5 

employees and the largest has 175 

employees. The majority of the small 

businesses affected by this rulemaking 

(75 percent) have fewer than 50 

employees and all but one of the small 

businesses have fewer than 100 

employees. 

TABLE IV.1—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

Number of employees Number of small 

businesses 

Percentage of 

small businesses 

Cumulative 

percentage 

1–50 ........................................................................................................................... 6 76 75 

51–100 ....................................................................................................................... 1 13 88 

101–150 ..................................................................................................................... 0 0 88 

151–200 ..................................................................................................................... 1 13 100 

This final rule amends the test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers. Specifically, DOE is 

incorporating revisions to the DOE test 

procedure that: 

1. Update the references to AHRI 

Standard 810–2007 with Addendum 1 

and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009; 

2. Expand the scope of the test 

procedure to include equipment with 

capacities from 50 to 4,000 pounds of 

ice per 24 hours; 

3. Provide test methods for 

continuous type ice makers and 

standardize the measurement of energy 

and water use for continuous type ice 

makers with respect to ice hardness; 

4. Clarify the test method and 

reporting requirements for remote 

condensing automatic commercial ice 

makers designed for connection to 

remote compressor racks; and 

5. Discontinue the use of a clarified 

energy use rate calculation and instead 

calculate energy use per 100 pounds of 

ice as specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–2009. 

Changes to the existing rule as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

have potential impacts on 

manufacturers who will be required to 

revise their current testing program to 

comply with DOE’s energy conservation 

standards. DOE has analyzed these 

impacts on small businesses and 

presents its findings in the remainder of 

this section. 

Currently, only automatic commercial 

ice makers that produce cube type ice 

with capacities between 50 and 2,500 

pounds of ice per 24 hours must be 

tested using the DOE test procedure to 

show compliance with energy 

conservation standards established in 

EPACT 2005. Automatic commercial ice 

makers with larger capacities, batch 

type ice makers that produce other than 

cube type ice, and continuous type ice 

makers of any capacity have not been 

subject to this rule. This rulemaking 

would institute new testing 

requirements for automatic commercial 

batch type ice makers that produce cube 

type ice with capacities between 2,500 

and 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours, 

batch type ice makers that produce 

other than cube type ice with capacities 

between 50 and 4,000 pounds of ice per 

24 hours, and continuous type ice 

makers with capacities between 50 and 

4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours. The 

costs to manufacturers associated with 

these test procedures were estimated to 

range from $5,000 to $7,500 per tested 

model. This estimate is based on input 

from manufacturers and third-party 

testing laboratories for completing a test 

as specified by AHRI Standard 810– 

2007 with Addendum 1 on automatic 

commercial ice makers. Additional 

testing requirements will be mandatory 

for continuous type ice makers to assess 

ice hardness, as discussed in the 

following paragraph. 

The additional test methods required 

for continuous type ice makers will 

standardize energy and water use with 

respect to ice hardness. This test will 

consist of performing an additional 

calorimetry test, as specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009, normative 

annex A. DOE estimates that performing 

this test will require 2 additional hours 

of laboratory time, including the time to 

perform necessary calculations, per 

unit. Costs associated with the 

calorimetry test have been estimated by 

DOE to equal approximately 10 percent 

of the AHRI 810 test or $500 to $740. 

These costs would not include those 

associated with transportation, 

assuming that the unit would be 

analyzed at the same time as the 

required AHRI 810 test. DOE estimates 

that 28 percent of all automatic 

commercial ice makers would be subject 

to this additional test procedure. This 

estimate was developed based on 

publicly available listings of automatic 

commercial ice makers (e.g., AHRI and 

CEC databases) and manufacturer Web 

sites. 

The primary cost for small businesses 

under this rulemaking would result 

from the aforementioned additional 

testing requirements. These costs were 

applied to the number of existing 

designs subject to testing requirements 

outlined in this rulemaking, which DOE 

estimated at 30 models (for all small 

businesses combined) in the April 2011 

NOPR. DOE based the April 2011 NOPR 

estimate on an estimate of fundamental 

ACIM individual model offerings, 

consolidated into basic models based on 

similar features. For example, DOE 

estimated that each capacity of each 

unique product line (typically 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1610 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

8U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. National Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates. 2009. Washington, DC. 

9U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation—Management, Professional, and 

Related Employees. 2010. Washington, DC. 

determined by SKU numbers) 

represented a separate basic model that 

was required to be certified. DOE 

researched manufacturer catalogs and 

publically available databases to 

determine the number of unique 

product lines and capacities 

manufacturers offered to arrive at the 

estimate of 30 basic models for all small 

businesses. 

Based on DOE’s review of public 

comments in response to the April 2011 

NOPR and a detailed discussion of 

model characteristics with one small 

manufacturer, the number of models 

affected by these test procedures was 

increased to 264 models for all small 

manufacturers. This increase was based 

on the number of different features 

offered within each product line that 

DOE did not account for in the April 

2011 NOPR estimate, such as different 

refrigerants. Further, DOE assumes that 

each company would introduce a new 

base model (8 new models for testing) 

in each year of the 5-year (2015–2019) 

analysis time horizon (for a total of 40 

new models for testing). Thus, costs are 

higher in the first year following 

implementation of the new testing 

requirements as existing models are 

tested but decline in future years as the 

requirements are applied only to new 

models. Two scenarios were developed 

to reflect the low- and high-end cost 

estimates for each test presented 

previously in this section. Based on 

these assumptions, testing costs for 

small businesses were estimated at $1.4 

to $2.0 million in 2015 and $41,120 to 

$60,858 in 2016 through 2019. DOE 

presents the costs for the testing of all 

of these models in Table IV.2. As 

discussed below, however, DOE notes 

that based on grouping of similar basic 

models, the total number of models to 

be tested is likely to be significantly 

smaller. 

In addition to testing costs, DOE 

estimates an additional $24,572 in 

review and filing costs over the 5-year 

analysis time horizon. DOE bases its 

estimate on the assumptions that it 

would take an engineer 2 hours to 

communicate with the testing 

laboratory, review test results, prepare 

adequate documentation, and file the 

report. The average hourly salary for an 

engineer completing these tasks is 

estimated at $38.74.8 Fringe benefits are 

estimated at 30 percent of total 

compensation, which brings the hourly 

costs to employers associated with 

review and filing of reports to $55.34.9

The incremental costs incurred by 

small businesses to implement the 

requirements of this rulemaking are 

summarized in Table IV.2. Total costs to 

small businesses are estimated at $1.5 to 

$2.3 million over the 5-year analysis 

time horizon. The present value costs of 

this rulemaking on small businesses are 

estimated at $1.2 to $1.7 million, or 

$144,989 to $213,477 per small 

business, for an average annual cost of 

$28,998–$42,695. Annual costs are 

discounted using a 7-percent real 

discount rate, as recommended in OMB 

Circular A–94. 

TABLE IV.2—ANNUAL COSTS OF COMPLIANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES (2015–2019) 

Year 

Testing costs Review/filing 

costs 

Total costs Discounted costs 

Low end High end Low end High end Low end High end 

2015 ......................................................... $1,356,960 $2,008,301 $21,916 $1,378,876 $2,030,217 $1,051,938 $1,548,843 

2016 ......................................................... 41,120 60,858 664 41,784 61,522 29,791 43,864 

2017 ......................................................... 41,120 60,858 664 41,784 61,522 27,843 40,995 

2018 ......................................................... 41,120 60,858 664 41,784 61,522 26,021 38,313 

2019 ......................................................... 41,120 60,858 664 41,784 61,522 24,319 35,806 

Totals ................................................ 1,521,440 2,251,731 24,572 1,546,012 2,276,303 1,159,912 1,707,820 

Average Cost per Small Business ................................................................................................................................... 144,989 213,477 

DOE also estimated costs to small 

businesses using CCE basic model 

definitions, which allow manufacturers 

to group individual models with 

similar, but not exactly the same, energy 

performance characteristics into basic 

models for purposes of compliance with 

DOE’s regulations. 76 FR at 12428–29 

(March 7, 2011). DOE reviewed product 

literature and manufacturer Web sites to 

determine, on average, the number of 

individual models that could be 

grouped together into representative 

basic models. DOE determined that, for 

automatic commercial ice makers, an 

average of eight individual models 

could be grouped into basic models for 

the purposes of compliance with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards, thus 

reducing the number of models that 

would require testing from 264 to 33. 

DOE’s CCE requirements also require 

that each model be tested twice. Using 

the provisions for basic model grouping 

established in DOE’s CCE final rule, 

DOE estimated the costs to small 

businesses to be between $673,596 and 

$994,332 over the 5-year analysis time 

horizon. The present value costs of this 

rulemaking on all small businesses 

under this scenario are estimated at 

$475,126 to $701,360, or $59,391 to 

$87,670 per small business, for an 

average annual cost of $11,878 to 

$17,534. 

The findings of the DOE analysis 

suggest that small business 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers would not be 

disproportionally impacted by the test 

procedure amendments, relative to their 

competition. Testing procedures are 

required for each base model and only 

models produced by manufacturers that 

are covered by this rule would be 

required to be tested. DOE research 

indicates that the small entities affected 

by this regulation produce fewer 

automatic commercial ice makers, on 

average, when compared to larger 

businesses. Small businesses 

manufacture, on average, 264 individual 

models and 33 basic models covered by 

this rule, while large businesses 

manufacture an average of 2,176 

individual models and 272 basic 

models. Thus, small businesses are 

subject to fewer testing procedures, and 

testing costs for large businesses are 

estimated to be approximately 8.2 times 

higher than costs for small businesses. 

DOE has, therefore, concluded that large 

and small entities would incur a 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1611 

10BizStats. 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>. 

11Calculated based on data obtained from 

http://www.manta.com and Dun and Bradstreet 

reports. 

proportional distribution of costs 

associated with the new testing 

requirements. 

DOE conducted an analysis to 

measure the maximum testing cost 

burden relative to the gross profits of 

small manufacturers. The costs used in 

this analysis are the total cost to small 

businesses if they were to test each 

individual model, as presented in Table 

IV.2. DOE notes that these testing costs 

could be reduced by grouping 

individual models into basic models for 

the purpose of certification with 

existing energy conservation standards, 

as explained above. The analysis 

utilized financial data gathered from 

other public sources to derive the 

average annual gross profits of the small 

businesses impacted by this rule. The 

average industry gross profit margin was 

estimated at 29.0 percent.10 The 

annualized costs associated with this 

rulemaking were then compared to 

estimated gross profits to determine the 

magnitude of the cost impacts of this 

regulation on small businesses. Based 

on this analysis, DOE estimates that the 

total increase in testing burden amounts 

to approximately 0.5 to 0.7 percent of 

gross profit for the small manufacturers 

affected by this rule. DOE further 

estimates that the cost burden of the 

testing procedures is equal to 

approximately 0.1 to 0.2 percent of 

average annual sales ($8.9 million 11) 

per small entity affected by this 

regulation. DOE concludes that these 

values do not represent a significant 

economic impact. 

Based on the criteria outlined above, 

DOE continues to certify that the test 

procedure amendments would not have 

a ‘‘significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 

DOE has transmitted the certification 

and supporting statement of factual 

basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers must certify to 

DOE that their equipment complies with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers, including any amendments 

adopted for the test procedure. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and record-keeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including automatic commercial ice 

makers. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

Control Number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE amends its test 

procedure for automatic commercial ice 

makers. DOE has determined that this 

rule falls into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without affecting the 

amount, quality, or distribution of 

energy usage, and therefore will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR at 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the equipment 

that is the subject of today’s final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1612 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on state, 

local, and tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 

may cause the expenditure by state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The 

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of state, 

local, and tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR at 

12820; also available at http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today’s 

final rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s final rule will not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgated or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use if the regulation is 

implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 provides in 

relevant part that, where a proposed 

rule authorizes or requires use of 

commercial standards, the NOPR must 

inform the public of the use and 

background of such standards. In 

addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to 

consult with the Attorney General and 

the Chairman of the FTC concerning the 

impact of the commercial or industry 

standards on competition. 

This final rule incorporates testing 

methods contained in the following 

commercial standards: 

1. AHRI Standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1, which supersedes AHRI 

Standard 810–2003, ‘‘2007 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers,’’ section 3, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ section 4, ‘‘Test 

Requirements,’’ and section 5, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements’’ into 10 CFR 431.134(b); 

and 

2. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009, 

which supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005), ‘‘Method 

of Testing Automatic Ice Makers,’’ 10 

CFR 431.134(b) and (b)(2). 

DOE has consulted with both the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the FTC about the impact on 

competition of using the methods 

contained in these standards and has 

received no comments objecting to their 

use. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s rule before its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1613 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

20, 2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 431 of title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations to read 

as follows: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 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,’’ 

‘‘continuous type ice maker,’’ and ‘‘ice 

hardness factor,’’ and revising the 

definitions of ‘‘cube type ice’’ and 

‘‘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 and other batch 

technologies. Referred to as cubes type 

ice maker in AHRI 810 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.133). 

Continuous type ice maker means an 

ice maker that continually freezes and 

harvests ice at the same time. 

Cube type ice means ice that is fairly 

uniform, hard, solid, usually clear, and 

generally weighs less than two ounces 

(60 grams) per piece, as distinguished 

from flake, crushed, or fragmented ice. 

Note that this conflicts and takes 

precedence over the definition 

established in AHRI 810 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.133), which 

indicates that ‘‘cube’’ does not reference 

a specific size or shape. 

Energy use means the total energy 

consumed, stated in kilowatt hours per 

one-hundred pounds (kWh/100 lb) of 

ice stated in multiples of 0.1. For remote 

condensing (but not remote compressor) 

automatic commercial ice makers and 

remote condensing and remote 

compressor automatic commercial ice 

makers, total energy consumed shall 

include the energy use of the ice-making 

mechanism, the compressor, and the 

remote condenser or condensing unit. 

* * * * * 

Ice hardness factor means the latent 

heat capacity of harvested ice, in British 

thermal units per pound of ice (Btu/lb), 

divided by 144 Btu/lb, expressed as a 

percent. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/. Also, 

this material is available for inspection 

at National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

Standards can be obtained from the 

sources listed below. 

(b) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 

Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, 

(703) 524–8800, ahri@ahrinet.org, or 

http://www.ahrinet.org. 

(1) AHRI Standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1, (‘‘AHRI 810’’), 

Performance Rating of Automatic 

Commercial Ice-Makers, March 2011; 

IBR approved for §§ 431.132 and 

431.134. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(c) ASHRAE. American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 

Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, 

(404) 636–8400, ashrae@ashrae.org, or 

http://www.ashrae.org. 

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009, 

(‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 29’’), Method of 

Testing Automatic Ice Makers, 

(including Errata Sheets issued April 8, 

2010 and April 21, 2010), approved 

January 28, 2009; IBR approved for 

§ 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 810, section 3, ‘‘Definitions,’’ 

section 4, ‘‘Test Requirements,’’ and 

section 5, ‘‘Rating Requirements’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.133). Where AHRI 810 references 

‘‘ASHRAE Standard 29,’’ ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.133) shall be used. All references 

to cube type ice makers in AHRI 810 

apply to all batch type automatic 

commercial ice makers. 

(1) For batch type automatic 

commercial ice makers, the energy use 

and condenser water use will be 

reported as measured in this paragraph 

(b), including the energy and water 

consumption, as applicable, of the icemaking mechanism, the compressor, 

and the condenser or condensing unit. 

(2)(i) For continuous type automatic 

commercial ice makers, determine the 

energy use and condenser water use by 

multiplying the energy consumption or 

condenser water use as measured in this 

paragraph (b) by the ice hardness 

adjustment factor, determined using the 

following equation: 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULESER11JA12.048</GPH>
1614 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Determine the ice hardness factor 

by following the procedure specified in 

the ‘‘Procedure for Determining Ice 

Quality’’ in section A.3 of normative 

annex A of ANSI/ASHRAE 29 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.133), except that the test shall be 

conducted at an ambient air temperature 

of 70 °F ± 1 °F, with an initial water 

temperature of 90 °F ± 1 °F, and weights 

shall be accurate to within ± 2 percent 

of the quantity measured. The ice 

hardness factor is equivalent to the 

corrected net cooling effect per pound of 

ice, line 19 in ANSI/ASHRAE 29 Table 

A1, where the calorimeter constant used 

in line 18 shall be that determined in 

section A2 using seasoned, block ice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–218 Filed 1–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1193; Amdt. No. 25– 

136] 

RIN 2120–AJ80 

Harmonization of Airworthiness 

Standards for Transport Category 

Airplanes—Landing Gear Retracting 

Mechanisms and Pilot Compartment 

View 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration amends the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes on landing gear 

retracting mechanisms and the pilot 

compartment view. For the landing gear 

retracting mechanism, this rulemaking 

adopts the 1-g stall speed as a reference 

stall speed instead of the minimum 

speed obtained in a stalling maneuver 

and adds an additional requirement to 

keep the landing gear and doors in the 

correct retracted position in flight. For 

the pilot compartment view, this 

rulemaking revises the requirements for 

pilot compartment view in precipitation 

conditions. This action eliminates 

regulatory differences between the 

airworthiness standards of the U.S. and 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), without affecting current 

industry design practices. 

DATES: Effective March 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Mahinder Wahi, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Propulsion 

and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM– 

112, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; 

telephone (425) 227–1262; facsimile 

(425) 227–1320, email 

mahinder.wahi@faa.gov. 

For legal questions about this 

proposed rule, contact Doug Anderson, 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel 

(ANM–7), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057; telephone 

(425) 227–2166; facsimile (425) 227– 

1007; email Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under 

that section, the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

and minimum standards for the design 

and performance of aircraft that the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority. It 

prescribes new safety standards for the 

design and operation of transport 

category airplanes. 

List of Abbreviations Frequently Used 

in This Document 

Term Definition 

VS the stalling speed or the minimum 

steady flight speed at which the airplane is 

controllable. 

VS1 the stalling speed or the minimum 

steady flight speed obtained in a specific 

configuration. 

VSR reference stall speed and may not be 

less than a 1-g stall speed. 

VSR1 reference stall speed in a specific 

configuration. 

1-g stall speed minimum speed at which 

the airplane can develop the usable 

maximum lift force capable of supporting 

the weight of the airplane. 

List of Acronyms Frequently Used in 

This Document 

ALPA Airline Pilots Association 

ANAC Ageˆncia Nacional de Aviac ̧a ̃o Civil 

ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee 

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

ICAO International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

JAA European Joint Aviation Authorities 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

This action harmonizes airworthiness 

certification standards for landing gear 

mechanisms and pilot compartment 

view for transport category airplanes 

with those of EASA. Harmonizing these 

airworthiness standards reduces costs to 

airplane manufacturers and operators 

while retaining the level of safety. 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

This rulemaking results from an 

agreement between the European Joint 

Aviation Authorities (JAA), the 

predecessor to EASA, and the FAA to 

harmonize certain airworthiness 

standards between the two authorities. 

Differences between the regulations of 

the FAA and foreign certification 

authorities increase the cost and 

complexity of certification without 

contributing significantly to safety. 

These rules result from the 

recommendations of the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 

through its Mechanical Systems 

Harmonization Working Group 

(MSHWG). 

B. Summary of the NPRM 

The FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Docket 

No. FAA–2010–1193; Notice No. 10–19 

in the Federal Register on January 5, 

2011 (76 FR 472). The NPRM proposed 

to amend the standards for landing gear 

retraction mechanism and pilot 

compartment view to harmonize with 

the corresponding EASA standards. The 

proposed standards for landing gear 

addressed reference stall speed, positive 

means to keep the landing gear and 

doors in the correct retracted position, 

gear position indication, and protection 

of equipment on the landing gear and in 

the wheel well. The proposed standards 

for pilot compartment view addressed 

single failures of rain removal systems, 

alternatives to the openable side 

window requirement and certain 

environmental conditions. 

The comment period for the NPRM 

ended on April 5, 2011. 

C. General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received comments from 

Airbus, Boeing Company, Bombardier, 

Cessna Aircraft Company, Embraer, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES