Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 51 March 17, 2014 

Part IV 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14846 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0037] 

RIN 1904–AC39 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including automatic commercial ice 

makers (ACIM). EPCA also requires the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine whether more-stringent, 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

notice, DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers. The notice of 

proposed rulemaking also announces a 

public meeting to receive comment on 

these proposed standards and associated 

analyses and results. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than May 16, 2014. See section VII, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

DOE will hold a public meeting on 

Monday, April 14, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 

4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting 

will also be broadcast as a webinar. See 

section VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. Persons can attend the 

public meeting via webinar. For more 

information, refer to section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation.’’ 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers and provide 

docket number EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0037 and/or regulatory information 

number (RIN) 1904–AC39. Comments 

may be submitted using any of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: ACIM-2010-STD-0037@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy through the methods listed 

above and by email to Chad_S_

Whiteman@omb.eop.gov. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section VII of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The link to the docket Web page is the 

following: www.regulations.gov/#

!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE2010-BT-STD-0037. This Web page will 

contain a link to the docket for this 

proposed rule 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. See section VII 

for further information on how to 

submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1692. Email: 

automatic_commercial_ice_makers@

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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

III. General Discussion 

A. List of Equipment Class Abbreviations 

B. Test Procedures 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy and Water Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Commercial Customers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments 

A. General Rulemaking Issues 

1. Statutory Authority 

2. Test Procedures 

3. Need for and Scope of Rulemaking 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Equipment Classes 

a. Cabinet Size 

b. Large-Capacity Batch Ice Makers 

c. Efficiency/Harvest Capacity Relationship 

d. Continuous Ice Maker Equipment 

Classes 

e. Remote Condensing Unit Classes for 

Equipment With and Without Remote 

Compressors 

f. Remote to Rack Equipment 

g. Ice Makers Covered by the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14847 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

h. Regulation of Potable Water Use 

2. Technology Assessment 

a. Reduced Potable Water Flow for 

Continuous Type Ice Makers 

b. Alternative Refrigerants 

C. Screening Analysis 

a. Tube Evaporator Design 

b. Low Thermal Mass Evaporator Design 

c. Drain Water Heat Exchanger 

d. Design Options That Necessitate 

Increased Cabinet Size 

e. Microchannel Heat Exchangers 

f. Smart Technologies 

g. Screening Analysis: General Comments 

D. Engineering Analysis 

1. Representative Equipment for Analysis 

2. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

b. Incremental Efficiency Levels 

c. IMH–A–Large–B Treatment 

d. Maximum Available Efficiency 

Equipment 

e. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Efficiency Levels 

f. Comment Discussion 

3. Design Options 

a. Improved Condenser Performance in 

Batch Equipment 

b. Harvest Capacity Oversizing 

c. Open-Loop Condensing Water Designs 

d. Condenser Water Flow 

e. Compressors 

4. Development of the Cost-Efficiency 

Relationship 

a. Manufacturing Cost 

b. Energy Consumption Model 

c. Retail Cost Review 

d. Design, Development, and Testing Costs 

e. Empirical-Based Analysis 

f. Revision of Preliminary Engineering 

Analysis 

E. Markups Analysis 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Equipment Cost 

2. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 

Costs 

a. Installation Costs 

b. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Energy Price Projections 

6. Water Prices 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Lifetime 

9. Compliance Date of Standards 

10. Base-Case and Standards-Case 

Efficiency Distributions 

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

12. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

Period 

H. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

1. Shipments 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

3. National Energy Savings 

4. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit 

I. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Key Inputs 

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios 

3. Discussion of Comments 

a. Impact to Suppliers, Distributors, 

Dealers, and Contractors 

b. ENERGY STAR 

c. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

d. Small Manufacturers 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

a. Price Sensitivity 

b. Enforcement 

c. Reliability Impacts 

d. Impact on Innovation 

K. Emissions Analysis 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

1. Trial Standard Level Formulation 

Process and Criteria 

2. Trial Standard Level Equations 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Commercial 

Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Direct Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Amount and Significance of Energy 

Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and 

Benefits 

c. Water Savings 

d. Employment Impacts 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

C. Proposed Standard 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

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 the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

1. Standards Compliance Dates 

2. Utilization Factors 

3. Baseline Efficiency 

4. Screening Analysis 

DOE considered whether design options 

were technologically feasible; practicable 

to manufacture, install, or service; had 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

product availability; or had adverse 

impacts on health or safety. See Section 

IV.C of today’s NOPR and chapter 4 of 

the NOPR TSD for further discussion of 

the screening analysis. 

5. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

DOE seeks comments on the Maximum 

Technologically Feasible levels proposed 

in Table III.2 and Table III.3 of today’s 

notice. More discussion on this topic can 

be found in Section IV.D.2.e of today’s 

NOPR. 

6. Markups To Determine Price 

7. Equipment Life 

8. Installation Costs 

9. Open- Versus Closed-Loop Installations 

10. Ice Maker Shipments by Type of 

Equipment 

11. Intermittency of Manufacturer R&D and 

Impact of Standards 

12. INPV Results and Impact of Standards 

13. Small Businesses 

14. Consumer Utility and Performance 

15. Analysis Period 

16. Social Cost of Carbon 

17. Remote to Rack Equipment 

18. Design Options Associated With Each 

TSL 

19. Standard Levels for Batch-Type Ice 

Makers Over 2,500 lbs Ice/24 Hours 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, a program 

covering certain industrial equipment,2

which includes the focus of this 

proposed rule: automatic commercial 

ice makers. 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

that DOE prescribes for the covered 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14848 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3EPCA as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (EPACT 2005) established maximum energy 

use and maximum condenser water use standards 

for cube type automatic commercial ice makers 

with harvest capacities between 50 and 2,500 lb/24 

hours. In this rulemaking, DOE proposes amending 

the legislated energy use standards for these 

automatic commercial ice maker types. DOE did 

not, however, consider amendment to the existing 

condenser water use standards for equipment with 

existing condenser water standards. In the 

preliminary TSD, DOE indicated that the ice maker 

standards primarily focus on energy use, and that 

DOE is not bound by EPCA to evaluate reductions 

in the condenser water use in automatic 

commercial ice makers, and may in fact consider 

increases in condenser water use, if this is a costeffective way to improve energy efficiency. Section 

0 of today’s NOPR contains more information on 

DOE’s analysis of condenser water use. 

equipment, such as automatic 

commercial ice makers, shall be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B); 

6313(d)(4)) 

In accordance with these and other 

statutory criteria discussed in this 

proposed rule, DOE proposes amended 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers,3 and new 

standards for covered equipment not yet 

subject to energy conservation 

standards. The proposed standards, 

which consist of maximum allowable 

energy usage values per 100 lb of ice 

production, are shown in Table I.1 and 

Table I.2. Standards shown on Table I.1 

for batch type ice makers represent an 

amendment to existing standards set for 

cube type ice makers by EPCA in 42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)(1). Table I.1 also shows 

new standards for cube type ice makers 

with expanded harvest capacities up to 

4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hour period 

(lb ice/24 hours) and an explicit 

coverage of other types of batch 

machines, such as tube type ice makers. 

Table I.2 provides proposed standards 

for continuous type ice-making 

machines, which are not covered by 

DOE’s existing standards. The proposed 

standards include, for applicable 

equipment classes, maximum condenser 

water usage values in gallons per 100 lb 

of ice production. If adopted, the 

proposed standards would apply to all 

equipment manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States, 

beginning 3 years after the publication 

date of the final rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(2)(B)(i) and (3)(C)(i)) 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATCH TYPE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment type Type of 

cooling 

Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum 

energy use 

kilowatt-hours 

(kWh)/100 lb ice * 

Maximum 

condenser 

water use 

gal/100 lb ice ** 

Ice-Making Head ....................................................... Water ................ <500 5.84–0.0041H 200–0.022H 

≥500 and <1,436 3.88–0.0002H 200–0.022H 

≥1,436 and <2,500 3.6 200–0.022H 

≥2,500 and <4,000 3.6 145 

Ice-Making Head ....................................................... Air ..................... <450 7.70–0.0065H NA 

≥450 and <875 5.17–0.0008H NA 

≥875 and <2,210 4.5 

≥2,210 and <2,500 6.89–0.0011H NA 

≥ 2,500 and <4,000 4.1 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .. Air ..................... <1,000 7.52–0.0032H NA 

Air ..................... ≥1,000 and <4,000 4.3 NA 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ....... Air ..................... <934 7.52–0.0032H NA 

Air ..................... ≥934 and <4,000 4.5 NA 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Water ................ <200 8.55–0.0143H 191–0.0315H 

≥200 and <2,500 5.7 191–0.0315H 

≥2,500 and <4,000 5.7 112 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Air ..................... <175 12.6–0.0328H NA 

≥175 and <4,000 6.9 NA 

* H = rated harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given rated harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). 

** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

TABLE I.2—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONTINUOUS TYPE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE

MAKERS

Equipment type Type of 

cooling 

Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum 

energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice * 

Maximum 

condenser 

water use 

gal/100 lb ice ** 

Ice-Making Head ....................................................... Water ................ <900 6.08–0.0025H 160–0.0176H 

≥900 and <2,500 3.8 160–0.0176H 

≥2,500 and <4,000 3.8 116 

Ice-Making Head ....................................................... Air ..................... <700 9.24–0.0061H NA 

≥700 and <4,000 5.0 NA 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .. Air ..................... <850 7.5–0.0034H NA 

≥850 and <4,000 4.6 NA 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ....... Air ..................... <850 7.65–0.0034H NA 

≥850 and <4,000 4.8 NA 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Water ................ <900 7.28–0.0027H 153–0.0252H 

≥900 and <2,500 4.9 153–0.0252H 

≥2,500 and <4,000 4.9 90 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Air ..................... <700 9.2–0.0050H NA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14849 

4Life-cycle cost of automatic commercial ice 

makers is the cost to customers of owning and 

operating the equipment over the entire life of the 

equipment. Life-cycle cost savings are the 

reductions in the life-cycle costs due to the 

amended energy conservation standards when 

compared to the life-cycle costs of the equipment 

in the absence of the amended energy conservation 

standards. 

5Payback period refers to the amount of time (in 

years) it takes customers to recover the increased 

installed cost of equipment associated with new or 

amended standards through savings in operating 

costs. 6The standards analysis period for national 

benefits covers the 30-year period, plus the life of 

equipment purchased during the period. In the past 

DOE presented energy savings results for only the 

30-year period that begins in the year of 

compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, 

however, DOE considered operating cost savings 

measured over the entire lifetime of products 

purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen 

to modify its presentation of national energy 

savings to be consistent with the approach used for 

its national economic analysis. 

TABLE I.2—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONTINUOUS TYPE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE

MAKERS—Continued 

Equipment type Type of 

cooling 

Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum 

energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice * 

Maximum 

condenser 

water use 

gal/100 lb ice ** 

≥700 and <4,000 5.7 NA 

* H = rated harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given rated harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). 

** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers 

Table I.3 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on customers of automatic 

commercial ice makers, as measured by 

the average life-cycle cost (LCC) 

savings 4 and the median payback 

period (PBP).5 The average LCC savings 

are positive for all equipment classes 

under the standards proposed by DOE. 

TABLE I.3—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS ON CUSTOMERS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment class * 

Average LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Median PBP 

years 

IMH–W–Small–B .............................................................................................................................................. 328 2.27 

IMH–W–Med–B ................................................................................................................................................ 587 0.85 

IMH–W–Large–B ** .......................................................................................................................................... 833 0.69 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 ......................................................................................................................................... 701 0.72 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ......................................................................................................................................... 1,260 0.58 

IMH–A–Small–B ............................................................................................................................................... 396 1.42 

IMH–A–Large–B ** ........................................................................................................................................... 1,127 0.84 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 .......................................................................................................................................... 1,168 0.82 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 .......................................................................................................................................... 908 0.94 

RCU–Large–B ** .............................................................................................................................................. 983 0.65 

RCU–Large–B–1 .............................................................................................................................................. 963 0.62 

RCU–Large–B–2 .............................................................................................................................................. 1,277 1.00 

SCU–W–Large–B ............................................................................................................................................ 694 1.00 

SCU–A–Small–B .............................................................................................................................................. 396 1.56 

SCU–A–Large–B ............................................................................................................................................. 502 1.49 

IMH–A–Small–C .............................................................................................................................................. 391 0.97 

IMH–A–Large–C .............................................................................................................................................. 1,026 0.69 

SCU–A–Small–C ............................................................................................................................................. 146 1.85 

* Abbreviations are: IMH is ice-making head; RCU is remote condensing unit; SCU is self-contained unit; W is water-cooled; A is air-cooled; 

Small refers to the lowest harvest category; Med refers to the Medium category (water-cooled IMH only); RCU with and without remote compressor were modeled as one group. For three large batch categories, a machine at the low end of the harvest range (B–1) and a machine at 

the higher end (B–2) were modeled. Values are shown only for equipment classes that have significant volume of shipments and, therefore, were 

directly analyzed. See chapter 5 of the NOPR technical support document, ‘‘Engineering Analysis,’’ for a detailed discussion of equipment classes analyzed. 

** LCC savings and PBP results for these classes are weighted averages of the typical units modeled for the large classes, using weights provided in TSD chapter 7. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the present year 

(2013) through the end of the analysis 

period (2047). Using a real discount rate 

of 9.2 percent, DOE estimates that the 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers is $101.8 million 

in 2012$. Under the proposed 

standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose up to 23.5 

percent of their INPV, or approximately 

$23.9 million. Based on DOE’s 

interviews with the manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers, DOE 

does not expect any plant closings or 

significant loss of employment. 

C. National Benefits 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers would save a 

significant amount of energy. The 

lifetime savings for equipment 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the year of compliance with 

amended and new standards (2018– 

2047) 6 amount to 0.286 quadrillion 

British thermal units (quads) of 

cumulative energy. 

The cumulative national net present 

value (NPV) of total customer savings of 

the proposed standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers in 2012$ ranges 

from $0.791 billion (at a 7-percent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14850 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7These discount rates are used in accordance 

with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

guidance to Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A–4, September 

17, 2003), and section E, ‘‘Identifying and 

Measuring Benefits and Costs,’’ therein. Further 

details are provided in section 0. 

8A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 U.S. short tons. 

Results for NOX, Hg, and SO2 are presented in short 

tons. 

9 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013) 

Reference Case, which generally represents current 

legislation and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

December 31, 2012. 10 DOE also estimated CO2 and CO2 equivalent 

(CO2eq) emissions that occur through 2030 (CO2eq 

includes greenhouse gases such as CH4 and N2O). 

The estimated emissions reductions through 2030 

are 5.8 million metric tons CO2, 576 thousand tons 

CO2eq for CH4, and 25 thousand tons CO2eq for 

N2O. 

11http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-ofcarbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 12 DOE is currently investigating valuation of 

avoided Hg and SO2 emissions. 

13 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2013, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits 

except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the 

latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown 

in Table I.5. From the present value, DOE then 

calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year 

period (2018 through 2047) that yields the same 

discount rate) to $1.751 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate 7). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating cost savings minus the 

estimated increased installed costs for 

equipment purchased in the period from 

2018–2047, discounted to 2013. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

are expected to have significant 

environmental benefits. The energy 

savings would result in cumulative 

emission reductions of 14.6 million 

metric tons (MMt) 8 of carbon dioxide 

(CO2), 8.7 thousand tons of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), 0.3 thousand tons of 

nitrous oxide (N2O), 75.8 thousand tons 

of methane (CH4) and 0.02 tons of 

mercury (Hg),9 and 21 thousand tons of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) based on energy 

savings from equipment purchased over 

the period from 2018–2047.10

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed and recently updated by an 

interagency process.11 The derivation of 

the SCC value is discussed in section 

IV.L. DOE estimates the net present 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reduction is between $0.102 and $1.426 

billion, expressed in 2012$ and 

discounted to 2013. DOE also estimates 

the net present monetary value of the 

NOX emissions reduction, expressed in 

2012$ and discounted to 2013, is 

between $0.54 and $5.53 million at a 7- 

percent discount rate, and between 

$1.71 and $17.56 million at a 3-percent 

discount rate.12

Table I.4 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from today’s proposed standards 

for automatic commercial ice makers. 

TABLE I.4—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE

MAKER CONSERVATION STANDARDS

Category Present value 

million 2012$ 

Discount rate 

(percent) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................... 982 7 

2,114 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) * ........................................................................................... 102 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) * ........................................................................................... 463 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) * ........................................................................................... 733 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) * ............................................................................................ 1,426 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value ($2,639/t case) ** ....................................................................................... 3 7 

10 3 

Total Benefits †, †† ............................................................................................................................................. 1,448 7 

2,587 3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ............................................................................................................................. 191 7 

364 3 

Net Benefits 

Including CO2 and NOX Reduction Monetized Value ..................................................................................... 1,257 7 

2,223 3 

* The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in year 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. 

The values of $11.8, $39.7, and $61.2 per metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5- 

percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $117.0/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. 

** The value represents the average of the low and high NOX values used in DOE’s analysis. †Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and the 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $39.7/t. †† DOE estimates reductions in sulfur dioxide, mercury, methane and nitrous oxide emissions, but is not currently monetizing these reductions. 

Thus, these impacts are excluded from the total benefits. 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

proposed standards, for automatic 

commercial ice makers sold in 2018– 

2047, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from the operation of 

equipment that meets the proposed 

standards (consisting primarily of 

operating cost savings from using less 

energy and water, minus increases in 

equipment installed cost, which is 

another way of representing customer 

NPV); and (2) the annualized monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.13

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14851 

present value. The fixed annual payment is the 

annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

14The AEO2013 scenarios used are the ‘‘High 

Economics’’ and ‘‘Low Economics’’ scenarios. 

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 emission 

reductions provides a useful 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. customer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured over the lifetimes of 

automatic commercial ice makers 

shipped from 2018 to 2047. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the 

present value of some future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of 1 ton of CO2 in each year. 

These impacts continue well beyond 

2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards are 

shown in Table I.5. (All monetary 

values below are expressed in 2012$.) 

Table I.5 shows the primary, low net 

benefits, and high net benefits scenarios. 

The primary estimate is the estimate in 

which the operating cost savings were 

calculated using the Annual Energy 

Outlook 2013 (AEO2013) Reference Case 

forecast of future electricity prices. The 

low net benefits estimate and the high 

net benefits estimate are based on the 

low and high electricity price scenarios 

from the AEO2013 forecast, 

respectively.14 Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for benefits and costs, the 

cost in the primary estimate of the 

standards proposed in this rule is $20 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs. (Note that DOE used a 3-percent 

discount rate along with the 

corresponding SCC series value of 

$39.7/ton in 2012$ to calculate the 

monetized value of CO2 emissions 

reductions.) The annualized benefits are 

$104 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $27 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $0.32 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

annualized net benefit amounts to $110 

million. At a 3-percent discount rate for 

all benefits and costs, the cost in the 

primary estimate of the amended 

standards proposed in this notice is $21 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs. The benefits are $121 million per 

year in reduced operating costs, $27 

million in CO2 reductions, and $0.55 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$128 million per year. 

DOE also calculated the low net 

benefits and high net benefits estimates 

by calculating the operating cost savings 

and shipments at the AEO2013 low 

economic growth case and high 

economic growth case scenarios, 

respectively. The low and high benefits 

for incremental installed costs were 

derived using the low and high price 

learning scenarios. The net benefits and 

costs for low and high net benefits 

estimates were calculated in the same 

manner as the primary estimate by using 

the corresponding values of operating 

cost savings and incremental installed 

costs. 

TABLE I.5—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Discount 

rate 

(percent) 

Primary 

estimate * 

million 2012$ 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate * 

million 2012$ 

High net 

benefits 

estimate * 

million 2012$ 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................................... 7 104 98 112 

3 121 113 132 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) ** .......................... 5 8 8 8 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) ** .......................... 3 27 26 27 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) ** .......................... 2.5 39 38 40 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) ** ........................... 3 82 80 84 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,639/t case) ** ................... 7 0.32 0.31 0.33 

3 0.55 0.53 0.58 

Total Benefits (Operating Cost Savings, CO2 Reduction and NOX

Reduction) † .................................................................................. 7 131 124 139 

3 149 139 160 

Costs 

Total Incremental Installed Costs .................................................... 7 20 21 20 

3 21 22 20 

Net Benefits Less Costs 

Total Benefits Less Incremental Costs ............................................ 7 110 103 120 

3 128 118 140 

* The primary, low, and high estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices from the AEO2013 Reference Case, Low Economic Growth Case, and 

High Economic Growth Case, respectively. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

values of $11.8, $39.7, and $61.2 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount 

rates, respectively. The value of $117.0 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. 

See section IV.L for details. For NOX, an average value ($2,639) of the low ($468) and high ($4,809) values was used. †Total monetary benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of NOX and CO2 emissions calculated at a 3-percent discount rate (averaged across three integrated assessment models) , which is equal to $39.7/ton (in 2012$). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14852 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

16All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant conservation 

of energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) and 

6313(d)(4)) DOE further notes that 

technologies used to achieve these 

standard levels are already 

commercially available for the 

equipment classes covered by this 

notice. Based on the analyses described 

above, DOE has tentatively concluded 

that the benefits of the proposed 

standards to the Nation (energy savings, 

positive NPV of customer benefits, 

customer LCC savings, and emission 

reductions) would outweigh the 

burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers 

and LCC increases for some customers). 

DOE also considered more-stringent 

energy use levels as trial standard levels 

(TSLs), and is still considering them in 

this rulemaking. However, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the potential 

burdens of the more-stringent energy 

use levels would outweigh the projected 

benefits. Based on consideration of the 

public comments DOE receives in 

response to this proposed rule and 

related information collected and 

analyzed during the course of this 

rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 

energy use levels presented in this 

notice that are either higher or lower 

than the proposed standards, or some 

combination of level(s) that incorporate 

the proposed standards in part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposal, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for automatic commercial 

ice makers. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C of EPCA,15 Public Law 

94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, a program 

covering certain industrial equipment, 

which includes the subject of this 

rulemaking: Automatic commercial ice 

makers.16

EPCA prescribed energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers that produce cube type ice with 

capacities between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/ 

24 hours. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) EPCA 

requires DOE 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)(A)) If amended standards are 

technically feasible and economically 

justified, DOE must issue a final rule by 

the same date. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(B)) 

Additionally, EPCA granted DOE the 

authority to conduct rulemakings to 

establish new standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers not covered by 

42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)), and DOE is using 

that authority in this rulemaking. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(A)) 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

equipment generally consists of four 

parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Subject to certain criteria 

and conditions, DOE is required to 

develop test procedures to measure the 

energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of each 

type or class of covered equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6314) Manufacturers of covered 

equipment must use the prescribed DOE 

test procedure as the basis for certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA. 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether that 

equipment complies with standards 

adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(s)) Manufacturers, when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of that 

equipment, must use the prescribed 

DOE test procedure as the basis for such 

representations. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) The 

DOE test procedures for automatic 

commercial ice makers currently appear 

at title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart H. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing amended 

standards for covered equipment. As 

indicated above, any amended standard 

for covered equipment must be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and 6313(d)(4)) 

Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any 

standard that would not result in the 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6313(d)(4)) DOE 

also may not prescribe a standard: (1) 

For certain industrial equipment, 

including automatic commercial ice 

makers, if no test procedure has been 

established for the product; or (2) if DOE 

determines by rule that the proposed 

standard is not technologically feasible 

or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(A)–(B) and 6313(d)(4)) In 

deciding whether a proposed standard 

is economically justified, DOE must 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4)) DOE 

must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the equipment subject to 

the standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered equipment in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered equipment that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy, or as applicable, water, savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered equipment 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the U.S. Attorney General (Attorney 

General), that is likely to result from the 

imposition of the standard; 

6. The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII) and 

6313(d)(4)) 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1) and 6313(d)(4)) Also, the 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard if interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the standard is likely 

to result in the unavailability in the 

United States of any covered product 

type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6313(d)(4)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14853 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6313(d)(4)) 

Section III.E.2 presents additional 

discussion about rebuttable 

presumption payback period (RPBP). 

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

specifies requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a type or 

class of covered equipment. DOE must 

specify a different standard level than 

that which applies generally to such 

type or class of equipment for any group 

of covered products that has the same 

function or intended use if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group (A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered equipment within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature that other 

equipment within such type (or class) 

do not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

equipment, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c) and 

6316(f)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under 42 

U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(f). 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3821 

(Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 

is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). To the 

extent permitted by law, agencies are 

required by Executive Order 13563 to: 

(1) Propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011). 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) has emphasized that such 

techniques may include identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes. 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). For 

the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE 

believes that this NOPR is consistent 

with these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13563, and the range of impacts 

analyzed in this rulemaking, the 

standards proposed herein by DOE 

achieves maximum net benefits. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on October 

18, 2005, DOE adopted the energy 

conservation standards and water 

conservation standards prescribed by 

EPCA in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) for certain 

automatic commercial ice makers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010. 70 FR at 60407, 60415–16. These 

standards consist of maximum energy 

use and maximum condenser water use 

to produce 100 pounds of ice for 

automatic commercial ice makers with 

harvest rates between 50 and 2,500 lb 

ice/24 hours. These standards appear at 

10 CFR part 431, subpart H, Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers. Table II.1 

presents DOE’s current energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers. 

TABLE II.1—AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY EPCA—COMPLIANCE REQUIRED

BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 2010 

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice 

Maximum condenser 

water use * 

gal/100 lb ice 

Ice-Making Head ....................................................... Water ................ <500 7.8–0.0055H ** 200–0.022H.** 

≥500 and <1,436 5.58–0.0011H 200–0.022H. 

≥1,436 4.0 200–0.022H. 

Air ..................... <450 10.26–0.0086H Not Applicable. 

≥450 6.89–0.0011H Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .. Air ..................... <1,000 8.85–0.0038H Not Applicable. 

≥1,000 5.10 Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ....... Air ..................... <934 8.85–0.0038H Not Applicable. 

≥934 5.30 Not Applicable. 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Water ................ <200 11.4–0.019H 191–0.0315H. 

≥200 7.60 191–0.0315H. 

Air ..................... <175 18.0–0.0469H Not Applicable. 

≥175 9.80 Not Applicable. 

Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). 

* Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14854 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

** H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

As stated above, EPCA prescribes 

energy conservation standards and 

water conservation standards for certain 

cube type automatic commercial ice 

makers with harvest rates between 50 

and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours: Selfcontained ice makers and ice-making 

heads (IMHs) using air or water for 

cooling and ice makers with remote 

condensing with or without a remote 

compressor. Compliance with these 

standards was required as of January 1, 

2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) DOE 

adopted these standards and placed 

them under 10 CFR part 431, subpart H, 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. 

In addition, EPCA requires DOE to 

conduct a rulemaking to determine 

whether to amend the standards 

established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), 

and if DOE determines that amendment 

is warranted, DOE must also issue a 

final rule establishing such amended 

standards by January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)(A)) 

Furthermore, EPCA granted DOE 

authority to set standards for additional 

types of automatic commercial ice 

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

6313(d)(1). (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(A)) 

While not enumerated in EPCA, 

additional types of automatic 

commercial ice makers DOE identified 

as candidates for standards to be 

established in this rulemaking include 

flake and nugget, as well as batch type 

ice makers that are not included in the 

EPCA definition of cube type ice 

makers. 

To satisfy its requirement to conduct 

a rulemaking, DOE initiated the current 

rulemaking on November 4, 2010 by 

publishing on its Web site its 

‘‘Rulemaking Framework for Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers.’’ (The 

Framework document is available at: 

www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BTSTD-0037-0024.) 

DOE also published a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

availability of the Framework 

document, as well as a public meeting 

to discuss the document. The notice 

also solicited comment on the matters 

raised in the document. 75 FR 70852 

(Nov. 19, 2010). The Framework 

document described the procedural and 

analytical approaches that DOE 

anticipated using to evaluate amended 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers, and identified various issues to 

be resolved in the rulemaking. 

DOE held the Framework public 

meeting on December 16, 2010, at which 

it: (1) Presented the contents of the 

Framework document; (2) described the 

analyses it planned to conduct during 

the rulemaking; (3) sought comments 

from interested parties on these 

subjects; and (4) in general, sought to 

inform interested parties about, and 

facilitate their involvement in, the 

rulemaking. Major issues discussed at 

the public meeting included: (1) The 

scope of coverage for the rulemaking; (2) 

equipment classes; (3) analytical 

approaches and methods used in the 

rulemaking; (4) impacts of standards 

and burden on manufacturers; (5) 

technology options; (6) distribution 

channels, shipments, and end users; (7) 

impacts of outside regulations; and (8) 

environmental issues. At the meeting 

and during the comment period on the 

Framework document, DOE received 

many comments that helped it identify 

and resolve issues pertaining to 

automatic commercial ice makers 

relevant to this rulemaking. These 

comments are discussed in subsequent 

sections of this notice. 

DOE then gathered additional 

information and performed preliminary 

analyses to help review standards for 

this equipment. This process 

culminated in DOE publishing a notice 

of another public meeting (the January 

2012 notice) to discuss and receive 

comments regarding the tools and 

methods DOE used in performing its 

preliminary analysis, as well as the 

analyses results. 77 FR 3404 (Jan. 24, 

2012). DOE also invited written 

comments on these subjects and 

announced the availability on its Web 

site of a preliminary analysis technical 

support document (preliminary analysis 

TSD). Id. (The preliminary analysis TSD 

is available at: www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BTSTD-0037-0026.) Finally, DOE sought 

comments concerning other relevant 

issues that could affect amended 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers, or that DOE should address in 

this NOPR. Id. 

The preliminary analysis TSD 

provided an overview of DOE’s review 

of the standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers, discussed the 

comments DOE received in response to 

the Framework document, and 

addressed issues including the scope of 

coverage of the rulemaking. The 

document also described the analytical 

framework that DOE used (and 

continues to use) in considering 

amended standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers, including a 

description of the methodology, the 

analytical tools, and the relationships 

between the various analyses that are 

part of this rulemaking. Additionally, 

the preliminary analysis TSD presented 

in detail each analysis that DOE had 

performed for this equipment up to that 

point, including descriptions of inputs, 

sources, methodologies, and results. 

These analyses were as follows: 

• A market and technology 

assessment addressed the scope of this 

rulemaking, identified existing and 

potential new equipment classes for 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

characterized the markets for this 

equipment, and reviewed techniques 

and approaches for improving its 

efficiency; 

• A screening analysis reviewed 

technology options to improve the 

efficiency of automatic commercial ice 

makers, and weighed these options 

against DOE’s four prescribed screening 

criteria; 

• An engineering analysis estimated 

the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) 

associated with more energy-efficient 

automatic commercial ice makers; 

• An energy and water use analysis 

developed the annual energy and water 

usage values for economic analysis of 

automatic commercial ice makers; 

• A markups analysis converted 

estimated MSPs derived from the 

engineering analysis to customer 

purchase prices; 

• A life-cycle cost analysis calculated, 

for individual customers, the 

discounted savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

compared to any increase in installed 

costs likely to result directly from the 

imposition of a given standard; 

• A payback period analysis 

estimated the amount of time it would 

take customers to recover the higher 

purchase price of more energy-efficient 

equipment through lower operating 

costs; 

• A shipments analysis estimated 

shipments of automatic commercial ice 

makers over the time period examined 

in the analysis; 

• A national impact analysis (NIA) 

assessed the national energy savings 

(NES), and the national NPV of total 

customer costs and savings, expected to 

result from specific, potential energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers; and 

• A preliminary manufacturer impact 

analysis (MIA) took the initial steps in 

evaluating the potential effects on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14855 

manufacturers of amended efficiency 

standards. 

The public meeting announced in the 

January 2012 notice took place on 

February 16, 2012 (February 2012 

preliminary analysis public meeting). At 

the February 2012 preliminary analysis 

public meeting, DOE presented the 

methodologies and results of the 

analyses set forth in the preliminary 

analysis TSD. Interested parties 

provided comments on the following 

issues: (1) Equipment classes; (2) 

technology options; (3) energy modeling 

and validation of engineering models; 

(4) cost modeling; (5) market 

information, including distribution 

channels and distribution markups; (6) 

efficiency levels; (7) life-cycle costs to 

customers, including installation, repair 

and maintenance costs, and water and 

wastewater prices; and (8) historical 

shipments. The comments received 

since publication of the January 2012 

notice, including those received at the 

February 2012 preliminary analysis 

public meeting, have contributed to 

DOE’s proposed resolution of the issues 

in this rulemaking as they pertain to 

automatic commercial ice makers. This 

NOPR responds to the issues raised by 

the comments. (A parenthetical 

reference at the end of a quotation or 

paraphrase provides the location of the 

item in the public record.) 

III. General Discussion 

A. List of Equipment Class 

Abbreviations 

In this notice, equipment class names 

are frequently abbreviated. The 

abbreviations are shown on Table III.1. 

TABLE III.1—LIST OF EQUIPMENT CLASS ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Equipment type Condenser 

type 

Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours Ice type 

IMH–W–Small–B .......................................... Ice-Making Head .......................................... Water ......... <500 Batch. 

IMH–W–Med–B ............................................ Ice-Making Head .......................................... Water ......... ≥500 and <1,436 Batch. 

IMH–W–Large–B * ........................................ Ice-Making Head .......................................... Water ......... ≥1,436 and <4,000 Batch. 

IMH–A–Small–B ........................................... Ice-Making Head .......................................... Air .............. <450 Batch. 

IMH–A–Large–B* ** (also IMH–A–Large–B– 

1).

Ice-Making Head .......................................... Air .............. ≥450 and <875 Batch. 

IMH–A–Extended–B* ** (also IMH–A– 

Large–B–2).

Ice-Making Head .......................................... Air .............. ≥875 and <4,000 Batch. 

RCU–NRC–Small–B ..................................... Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor.Air .............. <1,000 Batch. 

RCU–NRC–Large–B* ................................... Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor.Air .............. ≥1,000 and <4,000 Batch. 

RCU–RC–Small–B ....................................... Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor.Air .............. <934 Batch. 

RCU–RC–Large–B ....................................... Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor.Air .............. ≥934 and <4,000 Batch. 

SCU–W–Small–B ......................................... Self-Contained Unit ...................................... Water ......... <200 Batch. 

SCU–W–Large–B ......................................... Self-Contained Unit ...................................... Water ......... ≥200 and <4,000 Batch. 

SCU–A–Small–B .......................................... Self-Contained Unit ...................................... Air .............. <175 Batch. 

SCU–A–Large–B .......................................... Self-Contained Unit ...................................... Air .............. ≥175 and <4,000 Batch. 

IMH–W–Small–C .......................................... Ice-Making Head .......................................... Water ......... <900 Continuous. 

IMH–W–Large–C .......................................... Ice-Making Head .......................................... Water ......... ≥900 and <4,000 Continuous. 

IMH–A–Small–C ........................................... Ice-Making Head .......................................... Air .............. <700 Continuous. 

IMH–A–Large–C ........................................... Ice-Making Head .......................................... Air .............. ≥700 and <4,000 Continuous. 

RCU–NRC–Small–C .................................... Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor.Air .............. <850 Continuous. 

RCU–NRC–Large–C .................................... Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor.Air .............. ≥850 and <4,000 Continuous. 

RCU–RC–Small–C ....................................... Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor.Air .............. <850 Continuous. 

RCU–RC–Large–C ....................................... Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor.Air .............. ≥850 and <4,000 Continuous. 

SCU–W–Small–C ......................................... Self-Contained Unit ...................................... Water ......... <900 Continuous. 

SCU–W–Large–C ......................................... Self-Contained Unit ...................................... Water ......... ≥900 and <4,000 Continuous. 

SCU–A-Small-C ............................................ Self-Contained Unit ...................................... Air .............. <700 Continuous. 

SCU–A–Large–C .......................................... Self-Contained Unit ...................................... Air .............. ≥700 and <4,000 Continuous. 

* IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–NRC–Large–B were modeled in some NOPR analyses as two different units, one at the lower 

end of the rated harvest range and one near the high end of the rated harvest range in which a significant number of units are available. In the 

LCC and NIA models, the low and high harvest rate models were denoted simply as B–1 and B–2. Where appropriate, the analyses add or perform weighted averages of the two typical sizes to present class level results. 

** IMH–A–Large–B was established by EPACT–2005 as a class between 450 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. In this notice, DOE is proposing to divide this into two classes, which could either be considered ‘‘Large’’ and ‘‘Very Large’’ or ‘‘Medium’’ and ‘‘Large.’’ In the LCC and NIA modeling, 

this was denoted as B–1 and B–2. The rated harvest rate break point shown above is based on TSL 3 results. 

B. Test Procedures 

On December 8, 2006, DOE published 

a final rule in which it adopted AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) Standard 810–2003, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice 

Makers,’’ with a revised method for 

calculating energy use, as the DOE test 

procedure for this equipment. The DOE 

rule included a clarification to the 

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 lb of 

ice produced. 71 FR 71340, 71350 (Dec. 

8, 2006). ARI Standard 810–2003 

requires performance tests to be 

conducted according to the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI)/

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 29–1988 

(reaffirmed 2005), ‘‘Method of Testing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14856 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17EPCA defines automatic commercial ice maker 

in 42 U.S.C. 6311(19) as ‘‘a factory-made assembly 

(not necessarily shipped in 1 package) that—(1) 

Consists of a condensing unit and ice-making 

section operating as an integrated unit, with means 

for making and harvesting ice; and (2) May include 

means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and 

dispensing ice.’’ This definition includes 

commercial ice-making equipment up to 4,000 lb 

ice/24 hours, though DOE had not previously 

established test procedures and standards for units 

with the capacity between 2,500 and 4,000 lb ice/ 

24 hours. While 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) explicitly sets 

standards for cube type ice makers up to 2,500 lb 

ice/24 hours, 6313(d)(2) provides authority to set 

standards for other equipment types—all of which 

are covered by the EPCA definition of an automatic 

commercial ice maker. 

Automatic Ice Makers.’’ The DOE test 

procedure incorporated by reference the 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 

(Reaffirmed 2005) as the method of test. 

On January 11, 2012, DOE published 

a test procedure final rule (2012 test 

procedure final rule) in which it 

adopted several amendments to the DOE 

test procedure. This included an 

amendment to incorporate by reference 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 

810–2007, which amends ARI Standard 

810–2003 to expand the capacity range 

of covered equipment, provide 

definitions and specific test procedures 

for batch and continuous type ice 

makers, and provide a definition for ice 

hardness factor, as the DOE test 

procedure for this equipment. 77 FR 

1591 (Jan. 11, 2012). In March 2011, 

AHRI published Addendum 1 to 

Standard 810–2007, which revised the 

definition of ‘‘potable water use rate’’ 

and added new definitions for ‘‘purge or 

dump water’’ and ‘‘harvest water.’’ 

DOE’s 2012 test procedure final rule 

incorporated this addendum to the 

AHRI Standard. The 2012 test procedure 

final rule also included an amendment 

to incorporate by reference the updated 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009. Id. 

In addition, the 2012 test procedure 

final rule included several amendments 

designed to address issues that were not 

accounted for by the previous DOE test 

procedure. 77 FR at 1593 (Jan. 11, 2012). 

First, DOE expanded the scope of the 

test procedure to include equipment 

with capacities from 50 to 4,000 lb ice/ 

24 hours.17 DOE also adopted 

amendments to provide test methods for 

continuous type ice makers and to 

standardize the measurement of energy 

and water use for continuous type ice 

makers with respect to ice hardness. In 

the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE 

also clarified the test method and 

reporting requirements for remote 

condensing automatic commercial ice 

makers designed for connection to 

remote compressor racks. Finally, the 

2012 test procedure final rule 

discontinued the use of the clarified 

energy use rate calculation and instead 

required energy-use to be calculated per 

100 lb of ice as specified in ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009. The 2012 

test procedure final rule became 

effective on February 10, 2012, and the 

changes set forth in the final rule 

became mandatory for equipment 

testing starting January 7, 2013. 77 FR 

at 1593 (Jan. 11, 2012). 

The test procedure amendments 

established in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule are required to be used in 

conjunction with any new standards 

promulgated as a result of this standards 

rulemaking. Use of the amended test 

procedure to demonstrate compliance 

with DOE energy conservation 

standards or for representations with 

respect to energy consumption of 

automatic commercial ice makers is 

required on the compliance date of any 

energy conservation standards 

established as part of this rulemaking, 

and on January 7, 2013 for the energy 

conservation standards set in the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). 77 FR 

at 1593 (Jan. 11, 2012). 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each standards rulemaking, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis, which it 

bases on information that it has gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such 

analysis, DOE develops a list of design 

options for consideration, in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of these 

options for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

a design option to be technologically 

feasible if it is used by the relevant 

industry or if a working prototype has 

been developed. Technologies 

incorporated in commercially available 

equipment or in working prototypes 

will be considered technologically 

feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) Although 

DOE considers technologies that are 

proprietary, it will not consider 

efficiency levels that can only be 

reached through the use of proprietary 

technologies (i.e., a unique pathway), 

which could allow a single 

manufacturer to monopolize or control 

the market. 

Once DOE has determined that 

particular design options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each of these design options 

in light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv) Chapter 4 of the NOPR 

TSD discusses the results of the 

screening analyses for automatic 

commercial ice makers. Specifically, it 

presents the designs DOE considered, 

those it screened out, and those that are 

the bases for the TSLs in this 

rulemaking. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt (or not 

adopt) an amended or new energy 

conservation standard for a type or class 

of covered equipment such as automatic 

commercial ice makers, it determines 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible for such equipment. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 6313(d)(4)) 

Accordingly, in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

automatic commercial ice makers in the 

engineering analysis using the design 

parameters that passed the screening 

analysis. See chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD for the results of the analyses, and 

a list of technologies included in maxtech equipment. 

As indicated previously, whether 

efficiency levels exist or can be 

achieved in commonly used equipment 

is not relevant to whether they are maxtech levels. DOE considers technologies 

to be technologically feasible if they are 

incorporated in any currently available 

equipment or working prototypes. 

Hence, a max-tech level results from the 

combination of design options predicted 

to result in the highest efficiency level 

possible for an equipment class, with 

such design options consisting of 

technologies already incorporated in 

commercial equipment or working 

prototypes. DOE notes that it 

reevaluated the efficiency levels, 

including the max-tech levels, when it 

updated its results for this NOPR. Table 

III.2 and Table III.3 show the max-tech 

levels determined in the engineering 

analysis for batch and continuous type 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

respectively. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14857 

TABLE III.2—MAX-TECH LEVELS FOR BATCH AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment type * Energy use lower than baseline 

IMH–W–Small–B ....................................... 30%. 

IMH–W–Med–B ......................................... 22%. 

IMH–W–Large–B ....................................... 17% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours) 16% (at 2,600 lb ice/24 hours). 

IMH–A–Small–B ........................................ 33%. 

IMH–A–Large–B ........................................ 33% (at 800 lb ice/24 hours) 21% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours). 

RCU–Small–B ........................................... Not analyzed—similar to IMH–A.–Large–B (1500). 

RCU–Large–B ........................................... 21% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours) 21% (at 2,400 lb ice/24 hours). 

SCU–W–Small–B ...................................... Not analyzed—similar to SCU–A–Large–B. 

SCU–W–Large–B ...................................... 35%. 

SCU–A–Small–B ....................................... 41%. 

SCU–A–Large–B ....................................... 36%. 

* IMH is ice-making head; RCU is remote condensing unit; SCU is self-contained unit; W is water-cooled; A is air-cooled; Small refers to the 

lowest harvest category; Med refers to the Medium category (water-cooled IMH only); Large refers to the large size category; RCU units were 

modeled as one with line losses used to distinguish standards. 

** For equipment classes that were not analyzed, DOE did not develop specific cost-efficiency curves but attributed the curve (and maximum 

technology point) from one of the analyzed equipment classes. 

TABLE III.3—MAX-TECH LEVELS FOR CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment type Energy use lower than baseline 

IMH–W–Small–C ....................................... Not analyzed—similar to IMH–A–Large–C (820). 

IMH–W–Large–C ...................................... Not analyzed at 1,000 lb/day—similar to IMH–A–Large–C (820) Not analyzed at 1,800 lb/day—similar to IMH–A–Large–C (820). 

IMH–A–Small–C ........................................ 25.3%. 

IMH–A–Large–C ....................................... 17% (at 820 lb ice/24 hours) Not analyzed at 1,800 lb/day—similar to IMH–A–Large–C (820). 

RCU–Small–C ........................................... Not analyzed—similar to IMH–A–Large–C (820). 

RCU–Large–C ........................................... Not analyzed—similar to IMH–A–Large–C (820). 

SCU–W–Small–C ...................................... Not analyzed—similar to SCU–A–Small–C. 

SCU–W–Large–C * ................................... No units available. 

SCU–A–Small–C ....................................... 24%. 

SCU–A–Large–C * .................................... No units available. 

* DOE’s investigation of equipment on the market revealed that there are no existing products in either of these two equipment classes (as defined in this NOPR). 

** For equipment classes that were not analyzed, DOE did not develop specific cost-efficiency curves but attributed the curve (and maximum 

technology point) from one of the analyzed equipment classes. 

D. Energy and Water Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from automatic commercial ice 

makers purchased in the 30-year period 

that begins in the year of compliance 

with amended and new standards 

(2018–2047). The savings are measured 

over the entire lifetime of equipment 

purchased in the 30-year period. DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption in the 

absence of amended mandatory 

efficiency standards, and considers 

market forces and policies that affect 

demand for more-efficient equipment. 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model 

to estimate energy savings from 

amended standards for the equipment 

that are the subject of this rulemaking. 

The NIA spreadsheet model (described 

in section IV.H of this notice) calculates 

energy savings in site energy, which is 

the energy directly consumed by 

equipment at the locations where they 

are used. 

Because automatic commercial ice 

makers use water, water savings were 

quantified in the same way as energy 

savings. 

For electricity, DOE reports national 

energy savings in terms of the savings in 

energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. To convert 

this quantity, DOE derives annual 

conversion factors from the model used 

to prepare the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy 

Outlook. 

DOE has also begun to estimate fullfuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. 76 FR 

51282 (Aug. 18, 2011). The FFC metric 

includes the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels, and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

efficiency standards. DOE’s approach is 

based on calculation of an FFC 

multiplier for each of the fuels used by 

covered equipment. 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from 

adopting a standard for a covered 

product unless such standard would 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 

1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that 

Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy 

savings in this context to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The 

estimated energy savings in the 30-year 

analysis period for the TSLs (presented 

in section V.A) are nontrivial, and, 

therefore, DOE considers them 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 

section 325 of EPCA. 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

EPCA provides seven factors to be 

evaluated in determining whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4)) The 

following sections generally discuss 

how DOE is addressing each of those 

seven factors in this rulemaking. For 

further details and the results of DOE’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14858 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18Customers, or consumers, in the case of 

commercial and industrial equipment, are 

considered to be the businesses that purchase or 

lease the equipment or may be responsible for the 

cost of operating the equipment. 

analyses pertaining to economic 

justification, see sections IV and V of 

today’s rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Commercial Customers 

In determining the impacts of an 

amended standard on manufacturers, 

DOE first uses an annual cash flow 

approach to determine the quantitative 

impacts. This step includes both a shortterm assessment—based on the cost and 

capital requirements during the period 

between when a regulation is issued and 

when entities must comply with the 

regulation—and a long-term assessment 

over a 30-year period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include INPV, 

which values the industry on the basis 

of expected future cash flows; cash 

flows by year; changes in revenue and 

income; and other measures of impact, 

as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes 

and reports the impacts on different 

types of manufacturers, including 

impacts on small manufacturers. Third, 

DOE considers the impact of standards 

on domestic manufacturer employment 

and manufacturing capacity, as well as 

the potential for standards to result in 

plant closures and loss of capital 

investment. Finally, DOE takes into 

account cumulative impacts of various 

DOE regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For a detailed description of the 

methodology used to assess the 

economic impact on manufacturers, see 

section IV.J of this rulemaking. For 

results, see section V.B.2 of this 

rulemaking. Additionally, chapter 12 of 

the NOPR TSD contains a detailed 

description of the methodology and 

discussion of the results. 

For individual customers,18 measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and the PBP associated with new 

or amended standards. The LCC, which 

is specified separately in EPCA as one 

of the seven factors to be considered in 

determining the economic justification 

for a new or amended standard, 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed 

in the following section. For customers 

in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

national net present value of the 

economic impacts applicable to a 

particular rulemaking. For a description 

of the methodology used for assessing 

the economic impact on customers, see 

sections IV.G and IV.H; for results, see 

sections V.B.1 and V.B.2 of this 

rulemaking. Additionally, chapters 8 

and 10 and the associated appendices of 

the NOPR TSD contain a detailed 

description of the methodology and 

discussion of the results. For a 

description of the methodology used to 

assess the economic impact on 

manufacturers, see section IV.J; for 

results, see section V.B.2 of this 

rulemaking. Additionally, chapter 12 of 

the NOPR TSD contains a detailed 

description of the methodology and 

discussion of the results. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of equipment (including its 

installation) and the operating costs 

(including energy, water, maintenance, 

and repair expenditures) discounted 

over the lifetime of the equipment. The 

LCC savings for the considered 

efficiency levels are calculated relative 

to a base case that reflects projected 

market trends in the absence of new or 

amended standards. The LCC analysis 

requires a variety of inputs, such as 

product prices, product energy and 

water consumption, energy and water 

prices, maintenance and repair costs, 

product lifetime, and consumer 

discount rates. For its analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the considered equipment in the first 

year of compliance with amended 

standards. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in specific inputs, such as 

equipment lifetime and discount rate, 

DOE uses a distribution of values, with 

probabilities attached to each value. 

DOE identifies the percentage of 

customers estimated to receive LCC 

savings, or experience an LCC increase, 

in addition to the average LCC savings 

associated with a particular standard 

level. DOE also evaluates the LCC 

impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of customers that 

may be affected disproportionately by a 

national standard. For the results of 

DOE’s analyses related to the LCC, see 

section V.B.1 of this rulemaking and 

chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD; for LCC 

impacts on identifiable subgroups, see 

section V.B.1 of this notice and chapter 

11 of the NOPR TSD. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) 

and 6313(d)(4)) As discussed in section 

VI.B.3, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to 

project energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

In establishing classes of equipment, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE evaluates standards that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

equipment under consideration. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 

6313(d)(4)) The standards proposed in 

today’s rulemaking will not reduce the 

utility or performance of the equipment 

considered in the rulemaking. For 

DOE’s analyses related to the potential 

impact of amended standards on 

equipment utility and performance, see 

section V.B.4 of this rulemaking and 

chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from the imposition of a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It directs the 

Attorney General to make such 

determination, if any, of any lessening 

of competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard, and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary, within 

60 days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will 

transmit a copy of today’s proposed rule 

to the Attorney General with a request 

that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE will address the Attorney General’s 

determination in the final rule. 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

The energy savings from the proposed 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) 

and 6316(e)(1)) 

The proposed standards also are 

likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated 

with energy production. DOE reports 

the emissions impacts from today’s 

standards, and from each TSL it 

considered, in sections IV.K, IV.L and 

V.B.6 of this rulemaking. DOE also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14859 

19http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/pdfs/acim_baffles_faq_2013- 

9-24final.pdf. 

20http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/pdfs/acim_purge_faq_2013-9- 

25final.pdf. 

21A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers’’ 

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0037), which is 

maintained at www.regulations.gov. This notation 

indicates that the statement preceding the reference 

is document number 51 in the docket for the 

automatic commercial ice makers energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, and appears at 

page 2 of that document. 

reports estimates of the economic value 

of emissions reductions resulting from 

the considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

justified, to consider any other factors 

that the Secretary deems to be relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 

6316(e)(1)) In developing this proposed 

rule, DOE has also considered the 

comments submitted by interested 

parties. For the results of DOE’s 

analyses related to other factors, see 

section V.B.7 of this rulemaking. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6313(d)(4), EPCA 

provides for a rebuttable presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the additional 

cost to the customer of equipment that 

meets the new or amended standard 

level is less than three times the value 

of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analysis generates values used to 

calculate the effects that proposed 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the PBP for customers. These 

analyses include, but are not limited to, 

the 3-year PBP contemplated under the 

rebuttable presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to the customer, manufacturer, 

the Nation, and environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4). The 

results of these analyses serve as the 

basis for DOE’s evaluation of the 

economic justification for a potential 

standard level (thereby supporting or 

rebutting the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.G.12 of this 

rulemaking and chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments 

A. General Rulemaking Issues 

During the February 2012 preliminary 

analysis public meeting and in 

subsequent written comments, 

stakeholders provided input regarding 

general issues pertinent to the 

rulemaking, such as issues of scope of 

coverage and DOE’s authority in setting 

standards. These issues are discussed in 

this section. 

1. Statutory Authority 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

stated its position that EPCA prevents 

the setting of both energy performance 

standards and prescriptive design 

requirements (see chapter 2 of the 

preliminary analysis TSD). DOE also 

stated its intent to amend the energy 

performance standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers, and not to set 

prescriptive design requirements at this 

time (see chapter 2 of the preliminary 

analysis TSD). 

2. Test Procedures 

As discussed in section III.A, DOE 

published a test procedure final rule in 

January 2012 (2012 test procedure final 

rule). 77 FR 1591 (Jan. 11, 2012). All 

automatic commercial ice makers 

covered by DOE energy conservation 

standards promulgated as a result of this 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking will be required to use the 

2012 test procedures to demonstrate 

compliance beginning on the 

compliance date set at the conclusion of 

this rulemaking. 77 FR at 1593 (Jan. 11, 

2012). The standards can be found at 

title 10 CFR part 431, subpart H (or, 

alternatively, 10 CFR 431.134). 

Since the publication of the 2012 test 

procedure final rule, DOE has received 

several inquiries from interested parties 

regarding proper conduct of the DOE 

test procedure. Specifically, interested 

parties inquired regarding the 

appropriate use of baffles and automatic 

purge water controls during the DOE 

test procedure. On January 28, 2013, 

DOE published draft guidance 

documents to address the issues 

regarding baffles 19 and automatic purge 

water controls 20 and provided an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

comment on those interpretations of the 

DOE test procedure for automatic 

commercial ice makers. The comment 

period for those guidance documents 

extended until February 28, 2013. DOE 

will publish a final guidance document 

and responses to all comments received 

on the DOE Appliance and Commercial 

Equipment Standards Web site 

(www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/

default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1). However, 

DOE notes that these guidance 

documents serve only to clarify existing 

test procedure requirements, as 

established in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule, and do not alter the DOE test 

procedure. 

DOE’s test procedures are set in 

separate rulemaking processes. 

However, as part of the automatic 

commercial ice maker energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE did receive two comments related 

to the test procedures. Howe noted that 

measuring potable water use is 

important because de-scaling is crucial 

for maintaining the efficiency and 

utility of automatic commercial ice 

makers. Howe also recommended that 

DOE obtain information from additional 

manufacturers on the relationship 

between potable water use and 

automatic commercial ice maker 

performance. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 2) 21

The People’s Republic of China 

(China) noted that there are differences 

among test processes for refrigeration 

products issued by different bodies in 

the U.S. China stated that different test 

procedures may lead to different results 

for one product, and it will affect the 

judgment of compliance. Therefore, 

China suggested that the U.S. 

government unify the test procedure. 

(China, No. 55 at p. 3) 

As noted earlier, the 2012 test 

procedure final rule was published on 

January 11, 2012, and the energy 

conservation standards will be based on 

this test procedure. 77 FR at 1593. With 

regard to Howe’s comment, in the final 

rule, DOE elected to not require 

measurement of potable water. Since 

DOE is not setting potable water limits 

for automatic commercial ice makers, 

requiring manufacturers to measure 

potable water use would be an 

unnecessary expense. With regard to 

China’s comment, DOE has no authority 

regarding adjustment of the test 

procedures of other organizations. Also, 

if there is any uncertainty regarding 

how to conduct the test, manufacturers 

and others may request clarification 

from DOE. By updating the test 

procedure to reflect current AHRI and 

ANSI/ASHRAE standards, DOE expects 

any differences of the type noted by 

China will be minimized. 

3. Need for and Scope of Rulemaking 

At the February 2012 preliminary 

analysis public meeting and in written 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14860 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

22A notation in the form ‘‘Scotsman, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 26’’ identifies a 

comment that DOE has received during a public 

meeting and has included in the docket of this 

rulemaking at www.regulations.gov. This particular 

notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by 

Scotsman; (2) transcribed from the public meeting 

in document number 42 of the docket, and (3) 

appearing on page 26 of that document. 

comments, DOE received comments 

about the need for the rulemaking. 

Hoshizaki suggested DOE not adjust the 

energy standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers regulated under 

EPACT 2005, arguing that tightening the 

regulations that were just released 2 

years ago would negatively impact both 

manufacturers and end users. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 3) AHRI opined 

that, because the full effects of the 

EPACT 2005 standards will not be 

known until at least 2013, DOE should 

only consider the previously uncovered 

continuous and high-capacity batch 

type ice makers in this rulemaking. 

(AHRI, No. 49 at p. 3) 

Scotsman asked whether the 

upcoming rulemaking would cover 

products that both make and dispense 

ice. (Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at p. 26) 22

In response to the comments about 

the need for starting this rulemaking, 

DOE notes that under EPACT 2005, DOE 

must review the existing standards and, 

if justified, develop amended standards 

by January 1, 2015. Thus, DOE 

commenced the rulemaking to ensure 

compliance with the statutory deadline. 

During the rulemaking, DOE considered 

alternatives to this rulemaking in the 

regulatory impact analysis; this analysis 

is described in Section IV.O of today’s 

NOPR. As for covering products that 

make and dispense ice, the scope of the 

rulemaking is ice-making products. 

While the 42 U.S.C. 6311(19) definition 

of automatic commercial ice maker 

stated an ice maker may or may not 

include a means for dispensing or 

storing ice, not all ice makers do include 

such ancillary equipment. As discussed 

in the preliminary analysis TSD, section 

2.2.4.2, DOE determined that 

promulgating standards to regulate the 

energy usage of dispensers and storage 

bins may have an unintended impact on 

customer choices when choosing 

between models that include or do not 

include such ancillary equipment. By 

regulating energy usage of ancillary 

equipment, DOE could disincentivize 

the manufacturing of such equipment. 

If, and to the extent that, ice dispensing 

equipment use electricity, such 

electricity usage is not covered by this 

rulemaking. 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

When beginning an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE develops information that provides 

an overall picture of the market for the 

equipment concerned, including the 

purpose of the equipment, the industry 

structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both quantitative 

and qualitative assessments based 

primarily on publicly available 

information (e.g., manufacturer 

specification sheets, industry 

publications) and data submitted by 

manufacturers, trade associations, and 

other stakeholders. The subjects 

addressed in the market and technology 

assessment for this rulemaking include: 

(1) Quantities and types of equipment 

sold and offered for sale; (2) retail 

market trends; (3) equipment covered by 

the rulemaking; (4) equipment classes; 

(5) manufacturers; (6) regulatory 

requirements and non-regulatory 

programs (such as rebate programs and 

tax credits); and (7) technologies that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

the equipment under examination. DOE 

researched manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers and made a 

particular effort to identify and 

characterize small business 

manufacturers. See chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD for further discussion of the 

market and technology assessment. 

1. Equipment Classes 

In evaluating and establishing energy 

conservation standards, DOE generally 

divides covered equipment into classes 

by the type of energy used, or by 

capacity or another performance-related 

feature that justifies a different standard 

for equipment having such a feature. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6313(d)(4)) In 

deciding whether a feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

factors such as the utility of the feature 

to users. Id. DOE normally establishes 

different energy conservation standards 

for different equipment classes based on 

these criteria. 

Automatic commercial ice makers are 

divided into equipment classes based on 

physical characteristics that affect 

commercial application, equipment 

utility, and equipment efficiency. These 

equipment classes are based on the 

following criteria: 

• Ice-making process 

Æ ‘‘Batch’’ icemakers that operate on 

a cyclical basis, alternating between 

periods of ice production and ice 

harvesting 

Æ ‘‘Continuous’’ icemakers that can 

produce and harvest ice 

simultaneously 

• Equipment configuration 

Æ Ice-making head (a single-package 

ice-making assembly that does not 

include an ice storage bin) 

Æ Remote condensing 

D With remote compressor (compressor 

packaged with the condenser) 

D Without remote compressor 

(compressor packaged with the 

evaporator) 

Æ Self-contained (with storage bin 

included) 

• Condenser cooling 

Æ Air-cooled 

Æ Water-cooled 

• Capacity range 

Table IV.1 shows the 25 automatic 

commercial ice maker equipment 

classes that DOE is including in the 

scope of this rulemaking. The capacity 

ranges for the continuous units have 

changed from the preliminary analysis. 

TABLE IV.1—AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Type of ice maker Equipment type 

Type of 

condenser 

cooling 

Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Ice-Making Head ................................................................................ Water ......... ≥50 and <500 

≥500 and <1,436 

≥1,436 and <4,000 

Air .............. ≥50 and <450 

≥450 and <4,000 

Batch ............................................ Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) ............................ Air .............. ≥50 and <1,000 

≥1,000 and <4,000 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ................................. Air .............. ≥50 and <934 

≥934 and <4,000 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14861 

TABLE IV.1—AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES—Continued 

Type of ice maker Equipment type 

Type of 

condenser 

cooling 

Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Self-Contained Unit ............................................................................ Water ......... ≥50 and <200 

≥200 and <4,000 

Air .............. ≥50 and <175 

≥175 and <4,000 

Ice-Making Head ................................................................................ Water ......... ≥50 and <900 

≥900 and <4,000 

Air .............. ≥50 and <700 

≥700 and <4,000 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) ............................ Air .............. ≥50 and <850 

≥850 and <4,000 

Continuous ................................... Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ................................. Air .............. ≥50 and <850 

≥850 and <4,000 

Self-Contained Unit ............................................................................ Water ......... ≥50 and <900 

≥900 and <4,000 

Air .............. ≥50 and <700 

≥700 and <4,000 

Batch type and continuous type ice 

makers are distinguished by the 

mechanics of their respective icemaking processes. Continuous type ice 

makers are so named because they 

simultaneously produce and harvest ice 

in one continuous, steady-state process. 

The ice produced in continuous 

processes is called ‘‘flake’’ or ‘‘nugget’’ 

ice, which is often a ‘‘soft’’ ice with high 

liquid water content, in the range from 

10 to 35 percent, but can also be 

subcooled, i.e., be entirely frozen and at 

temperature lower than 32 °F. 

Continuous type ice makers were not 

included in the EPACT 2005 standards 

and are therefore not currently regulated 

by DOE energy conservation standards. 

Current energy conservation 

standards cover batch type ice makers 

that produce ‘‘cube’’ ice, which is 

defined as 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. 10 CFR 

431.132 Batch ice makers alternate 

between freezing and harvesting periods 

and therefore produce ice in discrete 

batches rather than in a continuous 

process. After the freeze period, hot gas 

is typically redirected from the 

compressor discharge to the evaporator, 

melting the surface of the ice cubes that 

is in contact with the evaporator 

surface, enabling them to be removed 

from the evaporator. The evaporator is 

then purged with potable water, which 

removes impurities that would decrease 

ice clarity. Consequently, batch type ice 

makers typically have higher potable 

water usage than continuous type ice 

makers. 

After the publication of the 

Framework document, several parties 

commented that machines producing 

‘‘tube’’ ice, which is created in a batch 

process identical to that which produces 

cube ice, should also be regulated. DOE 

notes that tube ice machines of the 

covered capacity range that produce ice 

fitting the definition for cube type ice 

are covered by the current standards, 

whether or not they are referred to as 

cube type ice makers within the 

industry. Nonetheless, DOE has 

addressed the commenters’ suggestions 

by emphasizing that all batch type ice 

machines are within the scope of this 

rulemaking, as long as they fall within 

the covered capacity range of 50 to 

4,000 lb ice/24 hours. This includes 

tube ice makers and other batch type ice 

machines (if any) that produce ice that 

does not fit the definition of cube type 

ice. To help clarify this issue, DOE now 

refers to all batch automatic commercial 

ice makers as ‘‘batch type ice makers,’’ 

regardless of the shape of the ice pieces 

that they produce. 77 FR 1591 (Jan. 11, 

2012). 

During the February 2012 preliminary 

analysis public meeting and in 

subsequent written comments, a number 

of stakeholders addressed issues related 

to proposed equipment classes and the 

inclusion of certain types of equipment 

in the analysis. These topics are 

discussed in this section. 

a. Cabinet Size 

Currently, DOE does not consider 

physical size as a criterion for setting 

equipment classes. 

Several stakeholders commented on 

the size standardization of ice makers. 

Scotsman commented that most ice 

makers are built in standard widths of 

22, 30, and 48 inches and standard 

depths between 24 and 28 inches, 

although heights may vary slightly 

depending on the machine. (Scotsman, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 

61) Manitowoc noted that the reason for 

this standardization is that most ice 

storage bins have standard sizes based 

on ice-making capacity, and the 

footprint of the ice maker on top needs 

to be the same as the footprint of the 

storage bin in order for them to fit 

together. Hence, according to 

Manitowoc, the industry has developed 

common sizes that have facilitated ice 

maker installations and replacements. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 91–92) Howe countered 

that, contrary to the assertions of other 

stakeholders, there are no ‘‘standard’’ 

ice maker dimensions. (Howe, No. 51 at 

pp. 1–2) 

Earthjustice commented that it may be 

helpful to use cabinet size as an 

additional criterion for defining 

equipment classes because the existing 

standard sizes of ice makers affect their 

efficiency and their utility to the 

consumer, both of which are factors that 

DOE typically considers in identifying 

equipment classes. (Earthjustice, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 90–91) 

However, Manitowoc commented that 

it manufactures ice makers in different 

cabinet sizes that deliver the same icemaking capacity, explaining that this 

facilitates flexible installation decisions 

but could complicate efforts to define 

equipment classes by cabinet size. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 91) 

The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) commented that it 

would be helpful to see a size analysis 

that would elucidate the effects of size 

on utility to the customer and potential 

energy savings. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 73–74) 

As noted by Manitowoc and 

Scotsman, there are standard sizes for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14862 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23Other examples are use of some higherefficiency compressors, which can be physically 

larger, and packaging of drain water heat 

exchangers within the equipment package. 

24Size is expressed in terms of volume, 

calculated by multiplying unit width by unit depth 

and by unit height (width × depth × height). 

ice makers. DOE’s review of product 

literature supports these claims, in 

contrast to Howe’s assertion that there 

are no standard sizes. However, not all 

customers face size constraints. 

DOE notes that a reason to consider 

separate equipment classes based on 

physical dimensions is to address 

differences in energy efficiency. An 

important size-related factor that can 

affect the efficiency of an ice maker is 

the size of its heat exchangers (i.e., the 

evaporator and condenser).23 A larger 

evaporator can make more ice per freeze 

cycle. Hence, for a given harvest 

capacity rate, the cycle can be allowed 

to take longer, thus reducing the 

required heat transfer rate per 

evaporator surface. The reduced heat 

transfer rate can be provided by a lower 

temperature differential between the ice 

and the refrigerant. Likewise, as the 

surface area of a condenser increases, 

the temperature differential between the 

refrigerant and the cooling medium 

(either air or water) decreases. These 

design changes can lead to higher 

evaporating temperature and lower 

condensing temperature, which both 

reduce the pressure differential between 

the compressor suction and discharge 

ports, which reduces the amount of 

electrical power necessary to compress 

the vapor, thus reducing energy 

consumption of the ice maker. 

To address size limitations and to 

save energy, DOE could consider 

Earthjustice’s recommendation to use 

size as a criterion in setting equipment 

classes. To do so, DOE could establish 

parallel sets of equipment classes—sizeconstrained classes (in which physical 

size would be limited to a prescribed 

maximum) and non-size-constrained 

classes (for which there would be no 

size restrictions). In the size-constrained 

classes, DOE’s ability to set stricter 

energy usage limits would be limited by 

the constraint that the physical size of 

the unit cannot be increased. In the nonsize-constrained classes, additional 

energy savings could be achieved by 

setting standards that increase the 

physical size of the unit as well as 

making the units more efficient. 

Accounting for size constraints is 

important in the automatic commercial 

ice maker industry because replacement 

sales comprise a majority of sales and 

equipment must be able to fit into the 

same space as the unit it replaces, and 

fit on existing ice storage bins, as 

described above. For opportunities in 

which physical size is not critical, nonsize-constrained equipment classes 

could save energy relative to the sizeconstrained units. If DOE decided not to 

establish separate equipment classes for 

space-constrained equipment, it may 

not be reasonable for DOE to consider 

design options that significantly 

increase physical size of the equipment, 

which would limit potential efficiency 

gains and/or make them more costly, 

thus likely resulting in less stringent 

standards for size-limited equipment 

classes. 

Previous DOE rulemakings provide 

ample precedent for creating spaceconstrained equipment classes. For 

instance, DOE developed spaceconstrained equipment classes for 

packaged terminal air conditioners and 

through-the-wall air conditioners, both 

of which represent industries in which 

replacement comprises a majority of 

sales. 10 CFR 430.32 

To determine whether space 

constraint is an issue (i.e., whether 

efficiency and physical size are direct 

functions of one another), DOE followed 

ASAP’s suggestion and prepared an 

analysis of the size and efficiency of 

automatic commercial ice makers. Using 

publicly available manufacturer 

information, DOE collected size 24 data 

for approximately 600 ice makers and 

mapped it to efficiency information 

listed in the AHRI database. After 

plotting and analyzing this data, DOE 

determined that, although there is a 

correlation between size and efficiency 

in automatic commercial ice makers, 

this correlation is not conclusive. 

Table IV.2 displays sample results of 

this size analysis, presenting 

information for two different large, aircooled IMH batch type ice makers at 

each of several selected harvest 

capacities. In many cases, the larger 

equipment is more efficient. For 

example, among the ice makers that can 

produce 1,500 lb ice/24 hours, the 28 ft3

products have total energy consumption 

values that are lower than the current 

energy consumption standard by greater 

than >20 percent, while the 19 ft3

products have total energy consumption 

values that are only 6 percent below the 

standard. In other cases, the data do not 

support this trend. For example, among 

the 800 lb ice/24 hour ice makers, the 

17 ft3 products are less efficient than the 

11 ft3 products. Finally, in cases such as 

the 1,430 lb ice/24 hour machines, there 

are also products with the same harvest 

capacity and volume that nonetheless 

have different efficiencies. Therefore, it 

is difficult to draw a decisive 

conclusion from this data. 

TABLE IV.2—RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

VOLUME AND EFFICIENCY FOR

LARGE IMH AIR-COOLED BATCH ICE

MAKERS

Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 

hours 

Volume 

ft 3

% Below 

baseline 

energy use 

(percent) 

500 ............ 9.1 

12.4 

3.2 

2.2 

800 ............ 10.8 

16.8 

13.5 

3.5 

1,150 ......... 18.0 

20.8 

13.5 

18.1 

1,430 ......... 20.1 

20.1 

3.0 

4.6 

1,530 ......... 19.3 

27.7 

6.0 

21.3 

Manitowoc noted during the February 

2012 preliminary analysis public 

meeting that it produces units with the 

same harvest rate in different size 

chassis sizes, and that these units have 

very similar features. (Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 

91) DOE, in its analysis, has noted that 

some manufacturers have achieved 

higher efficiencies for ice makers in 

smaller sizes (at constant harvest rates). 

Based on this information, DOE believes 

that size does affect efficiency levels (as 

it allows for large heat exchangers), but 

it is not the definitive factor in 

determining efficiency for ice makers. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that 

separate equipment classes for sizeconstrained units are not warranted. 

DOE notes that there is not a strong 

correlation between product size and 

product efficiency that supports 

separate equipment classes. 

Furthermore, DOE believes that adding 

additional classes for size-constrained 

units complicates the equipment class 

structure and analysis but does not 

improve the rulemaking or standards. 

b. Large-Capacity Batch Ice Makers 

In the November 2010 Framework 

document for this rulemaking, DOE 

requested comments on whether 

coverage should be expanded from the 

current covered capacity range of 50 to 

2,500 lb ice/24 hours to include ice 

makers producing up to 10,000 lb ice/ 

24 hours. All commenters agreed with 

expanding the harvest capacity 

coverage, and all but one of the 

commenters supported or accepted an 

upper harvest capacity cap of 4,000 lb 

ice/24 hours, which would be consistent 

with the current test procedure, AHRI 

Standard 810–2007. Most commenters 

categorized ice makers with harvest 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14863 

25A piecewise function is a mathematical 

relationship where the relationship between the 

independent variable and dependent variable varies 

over the inspected range. Different functions are 

used to describe this relationship for each discrete 

interval where this relationship is defined. The 

piecewise function is a way of expressing the full 

relationship (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/

PiecewiseFunction.html). 

capacities above 4,000 lb ice/24 hours as 

industrial rather than commercial. To be 

consistent with the majority of these 

comments, DOE proposed during the 

preliminary analysis to set the upper 

harvest capacity limit to 4,000 lb ice/24 

hours, even though there are few ice 

makers currently produced with 

capacities ranging from 2,500 to 4,000 lb 

ice/24 hours. 77 FR 3405 (Jan. 24, 2012) 

Since the publication of the preliminary 

analysis, DOE revised the test 

procedure, with the final rule published 

in January 2012, to include all batch and 

continuous type ice makers with 

capacities between 50 and 4,000 lb ice/ 

24 hours. 77 FR 1591, 1613–14 (Jan. 11, 

2012). In the 2012 test procedure final 

rule, DOE noted that 4,000 lb ice/24 

hours represented a reasonable limit for 

commercial ice makers, as larger-sized 

ice makers were generally used for 

industrial applications and testing 

machines up to 4,000 lb was consistent 

with AHRI 810–2007. 77 FR 1591 (Jan. 

11, 2012). Therefore, because DOE now 

has a procedure for testing ice makers 

with capacities up to 4,000 lb ice/24 

hours, DOE proposes in this NOPR to 

set efficiency standards that include all 

ice makers in this extended capacity 

range. 

In written comments after the 

publication of the preliminary analysis, 

AHRI and Manitowoc both 

recommended that DOE refrain from 

regulating products with capacities 

above 2,500 lb ice/24 hours if there are 

not enough high-capacity batch 

machines available for DOE to analyze. 

(AHRI, No. 49 at pp. 3–4; Manitowoc, 

No. 54 at p. 3) 

DOE acknowledges that there are 

currently few automatic commercial ice 

makers with harvest capacities above 

2,500 lb ice/24 hours. However, DOE 

already has a precedent of setting 

standards for harvest capacity ranges in 

which there are no products available. 

There are currently no IMH air-cooled 

ice makers on the market with harvest 

capacities above 1,650 lb ice/24 hours, 

yet EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to set 

standards for this equipment class of ice 

makers with harvest capacities up to 

2,500 lb ice/24 hours. Because it is 

possible that batch-type ice makers with 

harvest capacities from 2,500 to 4,000 lb 

ice/24 hours will be manufactured in 

the future, DOE does not find it 

unreasonable to set standards in this 

rulemaking for batch type ice makers 

with harvest capacities in the range up 

to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. Therefore, DOE 

maintains its position to include largecapacity batch type ice makers in the 

scope of this rulemaking. However, DOE 

requests comment and data on the 

viability of the proposed standard levels 

selected for batch-type ice makers with 

harvest capacities from 2,500 to 4,000 lb 

ice/24 hours. The proposed standard 

levels are discussed in Section V.A.2 of 

today’s NOPR. 

c. Efficiency/Harvest Capacity 

Relationship 

In the current energy conservation 

standards, DOE uses discrete harvest 

capacity breakpoints to differentiate 

cube machine classes, and DOE 

proposes to do the same with new 

classes for continuous machines. 

In reviewing industry literature, DOE 

found that compressor efficiency 

increases over a range of harvest rate 

capacities and then tends to flatten out 

at the higher capacities. This trend is 

illustrated in Table IV.3, which displays 

the capacities and energy efficiency 

ratios (EERs) of one family of 

reciprocating compressors. As shown in 

this table, the EERs of compressors in 

this family level off to between 6.5 and 

7.2 British thermal units per watt-hour 

(Btu/Wh) at capacities beyond 14,300 

Btu per hour. 

TABLE IV.3—RELATIONSHIP OF

COMPRESSOR CAPACITY TO EER 

Capacity 

Btu/hr 

EER 

Btu/Wh 

7,970 5.8 

8,440 5.1 

8,840 6.0 

9,870 6.2 

10,200 5.5 

10,900 6.3 

11,300 5.5 

12,400 7.0 

12,900 6.0 

14,100 5.9 

14,300 6.5 

14,900 6.6 

18,100 7.0 

18,300 6.5 

18,600 6.6 

19,600 5.6 

22,200 6.5 

22,500 7.2 

24,300 7.1 

24,600 6.6 

26,000 6.5 

29,300 6.7 

29,600 6.6 

30,500 6.7 

31,300 6.9 

34,400 6.7 

36,700 6.7 

42,200 6.8 

Due primarily to the compressor 

trends discussed above, ice maker 

energy usage also varies as products 

increase in cooling capacity. Ice maker 

energy use (in kilowatt-hours per 100 lb 

of ice) decreases as the harvest rate 

increases in all products, but because 

the compressor trends do not continue 

indefinitely, the ice maker energy usage 

becomes constant at larger harvest rates. 

The point at which usage becomes 

constant for ice makers varies by 

equipment type. 

DOE has traditionally used a 

piecewise linear approach 25 to depict 

the standard levels, with the 

breakpoints defining the harvest 

capacity rate limits of different 

equipment classes. Thus, for the current 

energy conservation standards for batch 

type equipment, the maximum 

allowable energy use declines as harvest 

capacity increases for the smallest 

harvest capacity rate equipment classes. 

In contrast, for most of the larger harvest 

capacity rate equipment classes, the 

maximum allowable energy use is a 

constant. The one exception is the large 

IMH air-cooled equipment class, where 

the maximum allowable energy use 

continues to decrease as harvest 

capacity rate increases. DOE believes 

that its piecewise energy consumption 

limits facilitate the simple calculation of 

energy standards while accurately 

depicting the complex relationship 

between capacity and efficiency. 

Several stakeholders commented on 

DOE’s decision to set piecewise 

efficiency levels according to harvest 

capacity. At the February 2012 

preliminary analysis public meeting, the 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC) questioned whether 

setting standards by capacity range 

would create discontinuous breakpoints 

in efficiency requirements that would 

drive manufacturers to seek one level of 

capacity over another to take advantage 

of a more favorable standard. (NPCC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 

22) In written comments, the Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), 

NPCC, and the California InvestorOwned Utilities (CA IOUs) 

recommended that DOE imitate 

ENERGY STAR® and use a single 

equation for each equipment class to 

define energy consumption standards as 

a function of harvest rate, rather than 

having multiple efficiency standards for 

different harvest capacity bins. (NEEA/ 

NPCC, No. 50 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 56 

at p. 2) CA IOUs added that, if DOE 

elects to continue distinguishing 

equipment classes based on harvest 

capacity breakpoints, it should explain 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14864 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

its reasoning for doing so. (CA IOUs, No. 

56 at p. 3) 

The newly finalized ENERGY STAR 

specification eliminates discontinuities 

by using one equation for IMH and selfcontained cube equipment as well as all 

three continuous equipment types, 

while achieving something similar to 

the asymptotic relationship mentioned 

by Manitowoc. The ENERGY STAR 

specification accomplishes this with 

equations that are more complex than 

those currently embodied in DOE’s cube 

ice machine standards, which have 

simple ‘‘intercept and slope’’ or ‘‘fixed 

and variable’’ components. For example, 

DOE’s current energy consumption limit 

for small IMH air-cooled equipment is 

as follows: 

Maximum Energy Usage (kWh) ≤ 10.26 

¥ 0.0086H 

(Where H = harvest rate capacity, up to 

449 lb ice/24 hours) 

The April 30, 2012 ENERGY STAR 

specification for the same equipment is: 

Maximum Energy Usage (kWh) ≤ 

37.72H¥0.298

By means of a more complicated 

formula, the ENERGY STAR 

specification creates a continuous curve 

while still respecting the asymptotic 

relationship between efficiency and 

harvest capacity. 

Manitowoc commented that it was not 

particularly important where the DOE 

places capacity breakpoints for different 

equipment classes as long as the 

breakpoints respect the asymptotic 

relationships between size and 

efficiency. Manitowoc also asked that 

there not be any real discontinuities at 

these breakpoints or discrepancies from 

the industry mean efficiency/capacity 

relationships. (Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 25–26) 

CA IOUs similarly requested that DOE 

base its harvest capacity breakpoints on 

an investigation of the market, rather 

than automatically using pre-existing 

breakpoints, and added that any new 

equipment classes generated by 

resetting these breakpoints must not 

allow backsliding. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at 

p. 3) 

The issue raised by NPCC and echoed 

by Manitowoc is that the equations used 

in the standards can cause points of 

discontinuity where rating equipment at 

slightly different capacity levels 

provides a benefit to the manufacturer 

in terms of allowable energy usage. In 

the current standards for IMH watercooled units, one discontinuity exists at 

500 lb ice/24 hours, the breakpoint 

between the small and medium harvest 

capacity rate equipment classes, where 

there is a 0.1 kWh/100 lb energy use 

gap, representing 2.0 percent of the 5.04 

kWh/100 lb maximum allowable energy 

use at this harvest capacity rate. 

However, eliminating this type of gap in 

the energy conservation standards 

would not require departure from a 

piecewise linear representation of 

maximum allowable energy use. 

Fitting a curve as was done to create 

the ENERGY STAR limits would be 

more complicated than creating a new 

standard that mirrors the existing usage 

limit structure. It would also be more 

difficult for customers, such as 

restaurant owners, who buy ice makers 

and need to make sense of the standards 

because the ENERGY STAR equation 

requires a calculator or a spreadsheet, 

and, DOE believes, leads to more 

questions and complexity. 

The single equation approach also 

runs somewhat contrary to the 

comments received from manufacturers. 

With the single equation provided by 

ENERGY STAR, energy usage limits for 

large machines continue to decline to 

zero (albeit at diminishing rates). The 

manufacturer comments cited in the 

discussion of large machines above 

provided several reasons that, at very 

high capacities, design constraints cause 

these products to have constant energy 

usage across different harvest capacities. 

This means that, at a certain point, 

efficiency tends to become more 

constant as harvest capacity changes, as 

is embodied in the current standards. 

The single equation approach would 

make it more difficult for the DOE 

standards to reflect this trend in the 

market. 

DOE has decided to continue 

structuring the equipment classes by 

utilizing multiple harvest rate sizes 

rather than moving to a single equation 

approach. By continuing to use multiple 

size classes, DOE will have greater 

flexibility to adequately address the 

efficiencies of large equipment classes. 

The risk of exploiting the system at size 

class break points can be mitigated by 

carefully developing standards. 

Moreover, DOE proposes amending the 

baseline energy standards to eliminate 

existing discontinuities at harvest 

capacity breakpoints. Note that under 

the DOE test procedure and specifically 

the updated ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

29–2009 that was incorporated by 

reference in that rule, harvest rates are 

to be determined at the time of test, and 

are not based on manufacturer 

specifications. (10 CFR 431.134) 

Furthermore, in EPACT 2005, Congress 

directed DOE to monitor whether 

manufacturers reduce harvest rates 

below tested values for the purpose of 

bringing non-complying equipment into 

compliance. (42 U.S.C. 6316(f)(4)(A)) 

DOE therefore intends to carefully 

assess whether such manipulation 

occurs as a result of any final rule using 

distinct break points. 

AHRI Standard 810–2007, as 

referenced by the DOE test procedure, 

states that the energy consumption rate 

of ice makers should be rounded to the 

nearest 0.1 kWh. By considering the 

standard levels using this rounding 

convention, the only existing 

discontinuity in DOE’s standards for 

batch type ice makers occurs at the 

breakpoint of 500 lb/24 hr between the 

IMH–W–Small–B and IMH–W– 

Medium–B equipment classes. In its 

analysis, DOE adjusted the baseline 

energy level for the IMH–W–Small–B 

equipment class to 7.79–0.0055H from 

7.80–0.0055H. This 0.01 change 

eliminates the discontinuity at this 

breakpoint, as seen in Table IV.4. In 

setting up TSLs, DOE sought to ensure 

that no discontinuities existed between 

equipment classes. 

TABLE IV.4—CURRENT STANDARD AND DOE ENGINEERING BASELINE FOR IMH–W–SMALL–B EQUIPMENT TYPE

Equipment type Current baseline 

(7.80–0.0055H) 

New baseline 

(7.79–0.0055H) 

IMH–W–Small–B ................................................................. 5.1 (rounded from 5.050) ................................................... 5.0 (rounded from 

5.040). 

IMH–W–Medium–B ............................................................. 5.0 (rounded from 5.030) ................................................... 5.0 (rounded from 

5.030). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14865 

26The current and recently completed DOE test 

procedures do not provide test procedures for this 

type of equipment. 

d. Continuous Ice Maker Equipment 

Classes 

The EPACT 2005 amendments to 

EPCA did not set standards for 

continuous type ice makers. At the 

February 2012 preliminary analysis 

public meeting, DOE presented NES 

results (see section IV.H.3 of this notice) 

that indicated the continuous 

equipment type accounted for 

approximately 0.03 quads of savings 

potential over the 30-year analysis 

period. The savings levels are low 

primarily because continuous type icemaking machines represent only 16 

percent of automatic commercial ice 

maker shipments, of which only two 

equipment classes (IMH air-cooled 

small and self-contained air-cooled 

small equipment) represent threequarters of shipments. 

At the February 2012 preliminary 

analysis public meeting and in written 

comments, AHRI and Scotsman both 

questioned the need to regulate 

continuous type ice makers, noting that 

the preliminary results of DOE’s 

national impact analysis show 

negligible NES (rounding to 0.000 

quads) for most continuous type 

equipment classes. (AHRI, No. 49 at 

pp. 1–2; Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 5; 

Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 105) 

AHRI and Scotsman questioned the 

need to include continuous remote 

condensing units (RCUs) with remote 

compressors as equipment classes, 

noting that these are niche products that 

represent a very small portion of the 

overall market. AHRI added that their 

minimal projected energy savings and 

low shipment volume would not justify 

the cost of testing and certifying these 

products to DOE. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 3; 

Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 2) 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to 

set new or amended energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers to: (1) Achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified; and 

(2) result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 

(o)(3)(B); 6313(d)(4)) The EPCA 

language does not require DOE to 

determine the significance of savings at 

the individual equipment class level in 

order to justify setting standards for all 

equipment classes of an equipment type 

DOE has decided to regulate all 

automatic commercial ice maker 

equipment classes. This will bring two 

important automatic commercial ice 

maker classes (self-contained, air-cooled 

small continuous and IMH air-cooled 

small continuous) under regulation. 

Regulating all equipment classes will 

create a consistent approach for 

regulating continuous type equipment 

as was done for batch type equipment. 

e. Remote Condensing Unit Classes for 

Equipment With and Without Remote 

Compressors 

The current standard levels 

differentiate between remote condensers 

with compressors in the condenser 

cabinet and remote condensers without 

remote compressors. DOE requested 

comment on whether to retain these 

equipment classes as separate groups. 

(DOE, Public Meeting Presentation, 

No. 7 at p. 30) 

Numerous stakeholders expressed 

their support for DOE’s differentiation 

of RCUs into two separate classes based 

on the location of their compressors. 

Manitowoc raised the issue at the public 

meeting, noting that locating the 

compressor remotely has a measurable 

impact on the overall efficiency of an 

ice maker. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 24–25) 

Scotsman added that these two classes 

of RCUs perform at different efficiencies 

in the field and provide different utility 

to the customer, thus justifying their 

separation into separate equipment 

classes. (Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at p. 45 and No. 46 

at p. 2) NPCC expressed agreement with 

Scotsman’s comment on the issue. 

(NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 45) 

Based on DOE’s review of these 

comments and data arising from the 

analyses, DOE believes the location of 

the compressor provides different 

customer utility, and that each 

equipment class experiences different 

energy usage trends due to suction line 

losses. DOE did not receive any 

information indicating that these 

equipment classes should not be kept 

separate. Therefore, DOE will continue 

to categorize RCUs with and without 

remote compressors into separate 

equipment classes. 

f. Remote to Rack Equipment 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

found that some high-capacity RCU– 

RC–Large–C ice makers are solely 

designed to be used with compressor 

racks and the racks’ associated 

condensers. A compressor rack is 

typically used with supermarket 

refrigeration equipment and consists of 

several compressors joined in a parallel 

arrangement to service several 

refrigeration products at once. One 

related issue is that the manufacturers of 

these automatic commercial ice makers 

do not provide for sale a condensing 

unit that could be paired with them as 

an alternative option. DOE noted that 

these units do not meet the statutory 

definition of ice makers, which states 

that an ice maker ‘‘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)(A)) Hence, DOE 

determined during the preliminary 

analysis that rack-only RCUs are not 

defined as ice makers under the statute 

and thus should not be included in this 

rulemaking. 

Howe recommended that DOE 

include remote to rack ice makers in the 

rulemaking because such units already 

represent a significant fraction of annual 

ice maker shipments and will become 

even more significant once the covered 

capacity range expands to 4,000 lb ice/ 

24 hours. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 4) 

Conversely, Scotsman commented that 

continuous RCUs with remote 

compressors comprise a very tiny piece 

of the overall automatic commercial ice 

maker market and thus questioned the 

need to establish equipment classes for 

these products. Scotsman added that 

these RCUs are difficult to test 26

because they are designed to be 

connected to supermarket rack systems. 

(Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 2) 

Earthjustice observed that DOE has 

not explained why it believes that ice 

makers designed for use with remote 

condenser rack systems do not consist 

of ‘‘a condensing unit and ice-making 

section operating as an integrated unit, 

with means for making and harvesting 

ice,’’ as automatic commercial ice 

makers are defined. Earthjustice argued 

that such ice makers use the same basic 

components, including both a 

condensing unit and an ice-making 

section. Moreover, Earthjustice 

continued, the two components are 

directly connected, and their integration 

is not nullified by the fact that other 

equipment may also be connected to the 

supermarket rack. Earthjustice added 

that DOE has long regulated split system 

residential and commercial air 

conditioners despite the fact that the 

outdoor and indoor components are 

frequently made by different firms. 

(Earthjustice, No. 47 at p. 5) 

Given the small market share of large 

continuous RCU remote compressor 

equipment (0.35 percent), DOE finds 

that Scotsman’s claim is credible in that 

continuous, rack-only equipment 

comprises only a fraction of the 0.35 

percent, and thus a tiny piece of the 

overall market. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14866 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

27Under DOE regulations, it is possible for more 

than one central air conditioner manufacturer to 

submit certification reports for a given condensing 

unit. 10 CFR 429.16 requires manufacturers of 

central air conditioners to certify compliance with 

the energy conservation standards to DOE. Where 

a coil manufacturer may offer a coil for sale to be 

matched with a condensing unit made by another 

manufacturer (mix-matched combination), the coil 

manufacturer can make representations for 

condensing unit coil combination, but, since the 

condensing unit manufacturer does not offer for 

sale the mixed-matched combination, only the coil 

manufacturer offering the combination for sale is 

responsible for certification of that combination. 

The Earthjustice comment drawing a 

parallel to split system residential air 

conditioners overlooks key distinctions. 

Residential equipment may pair 

components from different 

manufacturers, but only one 

manufacturer is responsible for the 

certification.27 Supermarket racks 

simultaneously serve multiple units of 

equipment (including commercial 

refrigerators and freezers, walk-in 

coolers and freezers, ice makers, air 

conditioners, and heat pumps), so there 

is no way to hold one manufacturer 

responsible for certifying its energy 

consumption. Drawing a parallel 

between these two circumstances is 

therefore not reasonable in that respect. 

Therefore, DOE decided to maintain 

its position not to cover rack-only RCU 

units in this standards rulemaking. DOE 

does request comment and supporting 

data on the overall market share of these 

units and any expected market trends. 

g. Ice Makers Covered by the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 

Of the 25 equipment classes that DOE 

is considering in this rulemaking, 13 are 

already covered under energy 

conservation standards that were set for 

cube type ice makers as part of EPACT 

2005. Current automatic commercial ice 

maker standards covering cube type ice 

makers took effect on January 1, 2010. 

Under the requirements of EPCA, DOE 

must review and make a determination 

as to whether amendments to the 

standards are technologically and 

economically justified by January 1, 

2015. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A)) 

In written comments, AHRI opined 

that, because the full effects of the 

EPACT 2005 ruling will not be known 

until at least 2013, DOE should only 

consider the previously uncovered 

continuous and high-capacity batch 

type ice makers in this rulemaking. 

(AHRI, No. 49 at p. 3) Similarly, 

Hoshizaki asked DOE not to adjust the 

energy standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers that are 

currently covered, arguing that 

tightening the regulations that were just 

released two years ago would negatively 

impact both manufacturers and end 

users. (Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 3) 

DOE is required by statute to review 

the standards and, if amended standards 

are technologically feasible and 

economically justified, to issue a rule to 

amend the standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)(A)) 

Manufacturers have asserted that the 

automatic commercial ice maker 

industry is a small component of the 

commercial refrigeration industry, and 

that given their size they have little or 

no influence with the manufacturers of 

major components such as compressors. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 14–15) Manufacturers 

noted that they are generally restricted 

to design options available to larger 

customers. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 15) 

Consistent with the comments from 

manufacturers, DOE’s engineering 

analysis included design options that 

are viable for automatic commercial ice 

makers. Most of the design options are 

extensively used in existing products, 

and a few design options (brushless DC 

motors) are available but rarely 

implemented in this equipment. 

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD contains 

further details of the analysis for each 

design option used. 

DOE has alternatives with respect to 

the date that new standards would take 

effect. EPCA requires that the amended 

standards established in this rulemaking 

must apply to equipment that is 

manufactured on or after 3 years after 

the final rule is published in the Federal 

Register unless DOE determines, by 

rule, that a 3-year period is inadequate, 

in which case DOE may extend the 

compliance date for that standard by an 

additional 2 years. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)(C)) 

For the NOPR analyses, DOE assumed 

a 3-year period to prepare for 

compliance. DOE requests comments on 

whether a January 1, 2018 effective date 

provides an inadequate period for 

compliance and what economic impacts 

would be mitigated by a later effective 

date. 

DOE also requests comment on 

whether the 3-year period is adequate 

for manufacturers to obtain more 

efficient components from suppliers to 

meet proposed revisions of standards. 

h. Regulation of Potable Water Use 

Under EPACT 2005, water used for 

ice—referred to as potable water—was 

not regulated for automatic commercial 

ice makers. 

The amount of potable water used 

varies significantly among batch type 

automatic commercial ice makers (i.e., 

cube, tube, or cracked ice machines). 

Continuous type ice makers (i.e., flake 

and nugget machines) convert 

essentially all of the potable water to 

ice, using roughly 12 gallons of water to 

make 100 lb of ice. Batch type ice 

makers use an additional 3 to 38 gallons 

of water in the process of making 100 

lb of ice. This additional water is 

referred to as ‘‘dump or purge water’’ 

and is used to cleanse the evaporator of 

impurities that could interfere with the 

ice-making process. 

The Alliance for Water Efficiency 

(Alliance), the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), and CA IOUs 

proposed that DOE regulate the water 

use of automatic commercial ice makers. 

(Alliance, No. 45 at pp. 3–4; NRDC, No. 

48 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 6) The 

Alliance noted that the potable water 

lost from purging represents a waste of 

the energy required to pump, treat, 

deliver, and dispose of this water on a 

national scale. This embedded energy 

use, the Alliance argued, gives DOE 

justification to include water efficiency 

standards along with its energy 

efficiency standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers. The Alliance 

recommended that DOE analyze 

technical data from real ice makers in 

order to accurately determine the 

minimum potable purge water rate 

required to prevent scaling. The 

Alliance also observed that the huge 

variation in potable water use among ice 

makers of similar capacities suggests 

that some ice makers may be purging 

water at excessive rates in order to 

overcome poor maintenance practices 

and schedules, which is not a justifiable 

excuse in the opinion of the Alliance. 

(Alliance, No. 45 at pp. 3–4) CA IOUs 

also recommended that DOE consider 

establishing potable water use limits, 

especially because the ENERGY STAR 

program already includes such limits. 

(CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 6) 

In response to comments from the 

Alliance, NRDC, and CA IOUs, DOE was 

not given a specific mandate by 

Congress to regulate potable water. 

EPCA, as amended, explicitly gives DOE 

the authority to regulate water use in 

showerheads, faucets, water closets, and 

urinals (42 U.S.C. 6291(6), 6295(j) and 

(k)), clothes washers (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(9)(B)), dishwashers (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(10)(B)), commercial clothes 

washers (42 U.S.C. 6313(e)), and batch 

(cube) commercial ice makers. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)) With respect to batch 

commercial ice makers (cube type 

machines), however, Congress explicitly 

set standards in EPACT 2005 only for 

condenser water use, which appear at 

42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), and noted in a 

footnote to the table that potable water 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14867 

28Footnote to table at 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1). 

29Nat’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)). 

use was not included.28 Congress 

thereby recognized both types of water, 

and did not provide direction to DOE 

with respect to potable water standards. 

This ambiguity gives the DOE 

considerable discretion to regulate or 

not regulate potable water. The U.S. 

Supreme Court has determined that, 

when legislative intent is ambiguous, a 

government agency may use its 

discretion in interpreting the meaning of 

a statute, so long as the interpretation is 

reasonable.29 In the case of ice makers, 

EPACT 2005 is ambiguous on the 

subject of whether DOE must regulate 

water usage for purposes other than 

condenser water usage in cube-making 

machines, so DOE therefore has chosen 

to use its discretion not to mandate a 

standard in this case. DOE instead 

considered potable water use reduction 

in batch-type ice makers as a design 

option for reducing energy use. DOE 

notes that the ENERGY STAR program 

has implemented potable water 

consumption requirements. 

Hoshizaki commented that potable 

water use varies from place to place, 

depending on water quality, and added 

that the market is already dictated to use 

less water. (Hoshizaki, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at p. 73) AHRI added 

that limiting potable water use would 

decrease ice clarity and increase scaling, 

which would subsequently increase the 

overall energy use of the ice maker. 

Therefore, AHRI and Hoshizaki both 

recommended against establishing 

maximum potable water use standards 

in this rulemaking because of the 

reduced utility and efficiency that it 

would cause. (AHRI, No. 49 at pp. 2–3; 

Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 1) 

The Hoshizaki and AHRI comments 

suggest that DOE intends to implement 

potable water use standards, but this is 

not the case. Rather, DOE is simply 

suggesting that reduction of potable 

water use is a viable technology option 

that satisfies the screening analysis 

criteria, as long as reductions are not 

excessive. This approach does not 

establish potable water use maximums 

since manufacturers are not required to 

use this design option in order to meet 

efficiency standards. Scotsman noted 

that the ENERGY STAR program has 

limited potable water use in ice makers 

to 25 gallons per 100 lb of ice and that 

the program is moving toward a new 

standard of 20 gallons per 100 lb of ice, 

which it believes to be the minimum 

levels for avoiding machine 

performance issues. Scotsman 

recommended that DOE refer to these 

ENERGY STAR standards in 

determining new potable water use 

limits. (Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 64–65 and No. 

46 at p. 5) Manitowoc agreed with 

Scotsman and added that the new 20 

gallons per 100 lb metric was developed 

with the aid of manufacturers and that 

further reducing potable water use 

could impact the long-term reliability of 

its machines. Therefore, Manitowoc 

stated that 20 gallons per 100 lb is the 

lowest water use limit with which it 

would be comfortable. (Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 

65–66) 

However, Manitowoc also commented 

that potable water use is a variable in 

the design process that manufacturers 

have already optimized to satisfy a 

number of competing factors. 

Manitowoc argued that, although 

reducing potable water use would 

improve machine efficiency up to a 

point, it would also decrease reliability 

and increase the required frequency for 

cleaning due to scaling. Manitowoc 

stated that the design limits for potable 

water use often depend on proprietary 

design elements; therefore, it would be 

difficult to set reasonable potable water 

use standards that were fair to all 

companies, in Manitowoc’s opinion. 

(Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 3) 

Howe noted that measuring potable 

water use is important because descaling is crucial for maintaining the 

efficiency and utility of automatic 

commercial ice makers. Howe also 

recommended that DOE obtain 

information from additional 

manufacturers on the relationship 

between potable water use and ice 

maker performance. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 

2) 

DOE has implemented in the analysis 

the recommendations of several 

stakeholders that 20 gallons per 100 lb 

of ice is a reasonable lower limit on 

potable water use for batch type ice 

makers, especially considering that 

there are numerous batch type ice 

machines that have potable water use at 

this level or lower. For example, in 

implementing batch water control as a 

design option, DOE is limiting the 

reduction in potable water use to 20 

gallons per 100 lb. This should not be 

confused with the establishment of a 

standard—this limit affects the extent to 

which a specific design option saves 

energy by placing a floor under the 

potable water usage. Though NRDC 

claims that reducing potable water use 

beyond this level would be feasible and 

beneficial, it has not identified specific 

designs with significantly less potable 

water use, nor has it provided data to 

show that long-term field use of such 

equipment is viable. Chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD contains more information 

about this analysis. 

2. Technology Assessment 

As part of the market and technology 

assessment, DOE developed a 

comprehensive list of technologies to 

improve the energy efficiency of 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

shown in Table IV.5. Chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD contains a detailed 

description of each technology that DOE 

identified. DOE only considered in its 

analysis technologies that would impact 

the efficiency rating of equipment as 

tested under the DOE test procedure. 

The technologies identified by DOE 

were carried through to the screening 

analysis and are discussed in section 

IV.C. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14868 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV.5—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Technology options Batch ice Continuous Notes 

makers ice makers 

Compressor .................................................. Improved compressor efficiency ................. √ √ 

Part load operation ...................................... √ √ 

Condenser .................................................... Increased surface area ............................... √ √ 

Enhanced fin surfaces ................................. √ √ Air-cooled only. 

Increased air flow ........................................ √ √ Air-cooled only. 

Increased water flow ................................... √ √ Water-cooled 

only. 

Brazed plate condenser .............................. √ √ Water-cooled 

only. 

Microchannel condenser ............................. √ √ 

Fans and Fan Motors ................................... Higher efficiency condenser fans and fan 

motors.

√ √ Air-cooled only. 

Other Motors ................................................ Improved auger motor efficiency ................. ........................ √ 

Improved pump motor efficiency ................. √ 

Controls ........................................................ Smart Technologies .................................... √ √ 

Evaporator .................................................... Design options which reduce energy loss 

due to evaporator thermal cycling.

√ 

Design options which reduce harvest 

meltage or reduce harvest time.

√ 

Larger evaporator surface area .................. √ √ 

Tube evaporator configuration .................... √ 

Insulation ...................................................... Improved insulating material and/or thicker 

insulation around the evaporator compartment.

√ √ 

Refrigeration Line ......................................... Larger diameter suction line ........................ √ √ RCUs with remote compressor. 

Potable Water ............................................... Reduced potable water flow ........................ √ 

Drain water thermal exchange .................... √ 

a. Reduced Potable Water Flow for 

Continuous Type Ice Makers 

Howe questioned why the list of 

design options for continuous type ice 

makers did not include reduced potable 

water flow, considering that such 

machines can have clean or flush cycles. 

(Howe, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

42 at pp. 30–31) 

DOE notes that some continuous 

machines may include controls or 

design options that may reduce potable 

water flow. Therefore, DOE has 

included reduced potable water flow for 

continuous machines as one of its 

design options. 

DOE also notes that the test procedure 

for continuous type ice makers calls for 

three 14.4-minute long measurements of 

ice-making production and energy use. 

The flushing cycles in continuous type 

ice makers typically do not occur within 

these measurement periods and the 

water used for flushing is not captured 

in the energy use metric; hence, because 

the engineering analysis cannot evaluate 

an improvement that occurs outside of 

the test procedure, this aspect of 

equipment operation was screened out 

in the screening analysis. 

b. Alternative Refrigerants 

Scotsman asked whether hydrocarbon 

refrigerants were considered as a design 

option. (Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at p. 32) Manitowoc 

responded that hydrocarbon refrigerants 

should not be considered in the analysis 

because they have not been approved 

for use by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP). 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 32) AHRI added that 

refrigerants that are used as alternatives 

to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) must 

be approved by both the EPA and the 

SNAP program. AHRI noted that, 

although some hydrocarbon refrigerants 

were approved for use in residential 

refrigerators and some commercial 

refrigerated display cases, they have not 

been approved for ice makers. (AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 

32–33) 

Manitowoc observed that future 

legislation may require the use of 

refrigerants that, based on their current 

status, have the potential to decrease the 

energy efficiency of ice makers. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 33) 

As indicated by AHRI, hydrocarbon 

refrigerants have not yet been approved 

by the EPA SNAP program and hence 

cannot be considered as a technology 

option in DOE’s analysis. DOE also 

notes that, while it is possible that 

hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants 

currently used in automatic commercial 

ice makers may be restricted by future 

legislation, DOE cannot speculate on 

such future laws and can only consider 

in its rulemakings laws that have been 

enacted. This is consistent with past 

DOE rulings, such as in the 2011 direct 

final rule for room air conditioners. 76 

FR 22454 (April 21, 2011). To the extent 

that there has been experience within 

the industry, domestically or 

internationally, with the use of 

alternative low-GWP refrigerants, DOE 

requests any available information, 

specifically cost and efficiency 

information relating to use of alternative 

refrigerants. DOE acknowledges that 

there are government-wide efforts to 

reduce emissions of HFCs, and such 

actions are being pursued both through 

international diplomacy as well as 

domestic actions. DOE, in concert with 

other relevant agencies, will continue to 

work with industry and other 

stakeholders to identify safer and more 

sustainable alternatives to HFCs while 

evaluating energy efficiency standards 

for this equipment. 

C. Screening Analysis 

In the technology assessment section 

of this NOPR, DOE presents an initial 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14869 

list of technologies that can improve the 

energy efficiency of automatic 

commercial ice makers. The purpose of 

the screening analysis is to evaluate the 

technologies that improve equipment 

efficiency to determine which of these 

technologies is suitable for further 

consideration in its analyses. To do this, 

DOE uses four screening criteria— 

design options will be removed from 

consideration if they are not 

technologically feasible; are not 

practicable to manufacture, install, or 

service; have adverse impacts on 

product utility or product availability; 

or have adverse impacts on health or 

safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, sections (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b) 

See chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for 

further discussion of the screening 

analysis. Additional screening criteria 

include whether a design option is 

expected to save energy or whether 

savings can be measured (using the 

prescribed test procedure), and whether 

an option is a proprietary technology or 

whether it is widely available to all 

manufacturers. Table IV.6 shows the 

EPCA criteria and additional criteria 

used in this screening analysis, and the 

design options evaluated using the 

screening criteria. 

In the NOPR phase, DOE made several 

changes to the treatment of design 

options from the preliminary analysis 

approach. These changes included: 

• Adding a design option to allow for 

growth of the unit to increase the size 

of the condenser and/or evaporator; 

• Adjusting assumptions regarding 

maximum compressor EER levels based 

on additional research and confidential 

input from manufacturers; 

• Adjusting potable water 

consumption rates for batch type ice 

makers subject to a floor that represents 

the lowest potable water consumption 

rate that would be expected to flush out 

dissolved solid reliably; 

• Adding a design option to allow 

condenser growth in water-cooled 

condensers; and 

• Adding a drain water heat 

exchanger design option. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17MR14.001</GPH>
14870 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Table IV.7 contains the list of 

technologies that remained after the 

screening analysis. 

TABLE IV.7—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS THAT WERE SCREENED IN

Technology options Batch ice Continuous Notes 

makers ice makers 

Compressor .................................................. Improved compressor efficiency ................. √ √ 

Condenser .................................................... Increased surface area ............................... √ √ 

Increased air flow ........................................ √ √ Air-cooled only. 

Increased water flow ................................... √ √ Water-cooled 

only. 

Fans and Fan Motors ................................... Higher efficiency condenser fans and fan 

motors.

√ √ Air-cooled only. 

Other Motors ................................................ Improved auger motor efficiency ................. ........................ √ 

Improved pump motor efficiency ................. √ 

Evaporator .................................................... Larger evaporator surface area .................. √ √ 

Potable Water ............................................... Reduced potable water flow ........................ √ 

Drain water thermal exchange .................... √ 

a. Tube Evaporator Design 

Among the technologies that DOE 

considered were tube evaporators that 

use a vertical shell and tube 

configuration in which refrigerant 

evaporates on the outer surfaces of the 

tubes inside the shell, and the freezing 

water flows vertically inside the tubes to 

create long ice tubes that are cut into 

smaller pieces during the harvest 

process. Some of the largest automatic 

commercial ice makers in the RCU– 

NRC–Large–B and the IMH–W–Large–B 

equipment classes use this technology. 

However, DOE concluded that 

implementation of this technology for 

smaller capacity ice makers would 

significantly impact equipment utility, 

due to the greater weight and size of 

these designs, and to the altered ice 

shape. DOE noted that available tube 

icemakers (for capacities around 1,500 

lb ice/24 hours and 2,200 lb ice/24 

hours) were 150 to 200 percent heavier 

than comparable cube ice makers. Based 

on the impacts to utility of this 

technology, DOE screened out tube 

evaporators from consideration in this 

analysis. 

b. Low Thermal Mass Evaporator Design 

DOE’s preliminary analysis did not 

consider low thermal mass evaporator 

designs. Reducing evaporator thermal 

mass of batch type ice makers reduces 

the heat that must be removed from the 

evaporator after the harvest cycle, and 

thus decreases refrigeration system 

energy use. DOE indicated during the 

preliminary analysis that it was 

concerned about the potential 

proprietary status of such evaporator 

designs, since DOE is aware of only one 

manufacturer that produces equipment 

with such evaporators. DOE requested 

comment on the proprietary status of 

low-thermal-mass evaporator designs in 

general, and the design used by the 

cited manufacturer (Hoshizaki) in 

particular. 

Scotsman commented that Hoshizaki 

has recently patented or attempted to 

patent modifications to improve 

evaporator efficiency and noted that 

using such evaporator designs would be 

difficult for other manufacturers 

because it would require an expensive 

and risky redesign of entire product 

lines. (Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 35–36; 

Scotsman, No. 46 at pp. 2–3) However, 

Manitowoc observed that, although 

intellectual property is certainly a 

concern, there may be ways to 

implement this low thermal mass 

evaporator technology without exactly 

duplicating Hoshizaki’s designs. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 36) 

Hoshizaki commented that its batch 

type evaporators do indeed contain 

intellectual property in past and future 

designs, adding that the tooling costs for 

manufacturing these evaporators would 

be too expensive for competing 

manufacturers to replicate. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 53 at p. 2) 

AHRI recommended that DOE 

eliminate proprietary designs from 

consideration and limit its analysis to 

technologies that are available to all 

manufacturers in the ice maker 

industry. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 4) 

Manitowoc commented that, in 

addition to the obvious legal issues 

associated with favoring a proprietary 

design held by a single manufacturer, 

DOE’s analysis tools are also incapable 

of predicting the potential benefit of low 

thermal mass evaporators, which are 

difficult to model accurately. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 36–37 and No. 54 at p. 3) 

Manitowoc also warned that the impact 

of this technology on one ice maker 

should not simply be extrapolated to 

other machines and that 

oversimplification of this analysis 

would affect the predicted efficiency 

benefits of each technology level. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 36–37) Manitowoc added 

that customers are very loyal to the style 

of ice that they get from its machines 

and that all manufacturers keep 

customer loyalty in mind when 

designing their evaporators. 

Consequently, Manitowoc expressed 

concern that a new evaporator design 

could force manufacturers to change the 

style of their ice, which could drive 

down sales and result in a low overall 

payback despite the improved energy 

performance, and therefore Manitowoc 

concluded that DOE should not 

establish higher efficiency levels based 

on this design option. (Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 

36–37 and No. 54 at p. 3) 

On the basis of its proprietary status, 

DOE concludes that its initial decision 

to screen out low-thermal-mass 

evaporator technology was appropriate. 

Thus, DOE has screened out this 

technology in its NOPR analysis. 

c. Drain Water Heat Exchanger 

Batch ice makers can benefit from 

drain water thermal exchange that cools 

the potable water supply entering the 

sump, thereby reducing the energy 

required to cool down and freeze the 

water. Technological feasibility is 

demonstrated by one commercially 

available drain water thermal heat 

exchanger that is currently sold only for 

aftermarket installation. This product is 

designed to be installed externally to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14871 

30A.J. Antunes and Co. Vizion Product Catalog. 

(Last accessed May 18, 2013.) 

<www.ajantunes.com/VIZION/VIZIONProduct

Catalog/tabid/229/ProdID/481/CatID/280/language/

en-US/Default.aspx> 

ice maker, and both drain water and 

supply water are piped through the 

device.30

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered whether such a component 

could be considered to be part of an ice 

maker as defined in EPCA. The EPCA 

definition for automatic commercial ice 

makers states that the ice maker consists 

of a condensing unit and ice-making 

section operating as an integral unit, 

with means for making and harvesting 

ice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(19)) The definition 

allows that the ice maker may include 

means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or 

storing and dispensing ice. None of the 

subcomponents of the ice maker listed 

in the definition could be interpreted as 

referring to heat exchangers for drain 

water thermal exchange. DOE notes that 

an ice maker can still make ice without 

a drain water heat exchanger; hence, the 

drain water heat exchanger cannot be 

considered an integral part of the 

equipment. For these reasons, DOE 

concluded during the preliminary 

analysis that external drain water heat 

exchangers, the only configuration of 

this technology for which technological 

feasibility is demonstrated, should be 

screened out, and requested comments 

on this approach. 

NPCC asserted that DOE should 

consider drain water thermal exchange 

as a technology option. NPCC proposed 

that reducing the inlet water 

temperature could enable an ice maker 

to maintain the same capacity without 

increasing the overall size of the unit. 

Although NPCC does not manufacture 

ice makers, it acknowledged having 

seen this technology implemented in 

other applications, such as water 

heating, without reducing capacity or 

increasing overall size. (NPCC, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 37–38) 

Earthjustice commented that DOE’s 

rationale for screening out drain water 

thermal heat exchangers was defective 

on both legal and factual grounds. In the 

preliminary analysis TSD, DOE 

suggested that externally mounted drain 

water heat exchangers would fall 

outside EPCA’s definition of automatic 

commercial ice makers, and that DOE 

therefore had no authority to consider 

them in this rulemaking. Earthjustice 

argued that this reading twists the 

statutory definition’s role in identifying 

which products constitute the 

‘‘automatic commercial ice makers’’ 

subject to efficiency standards into a 

‘‘Dos and Don’ts’’ list from Congress as 

to which elements of ice makers DOE 

may examine when amending the 

standards that Congress enacted. 

Congress adopted standards that apply 

to the ice maker as a whole, and 

Earthjustice asserted that there is 

therefore no basis to conclude that 

EPCA intended to prohibit DOE from 

looking holistically at this equipment 

when amending the statutory standards. 

Earthjustice added that, if every 

technological innovation that improved 

the efficiency of a covered product 

needed to be specifically mentioned in 

the statute’s definition of the product, 

there would be no need for a screening 

analysis. Earthjustice also noted that, in 

previous rulemakings, DOE consistently 

recognized that components that 

improve the efficiency of covered 

products merit consideration in the 

DOE’s analyses, notwithstanding that 

they may be unnecessary to the basic 

function performed by the product, not 

referred to in the statutory definition 

applicable to the product, or external to 

the case or envelope of the device. 

Finally, Earthjustice commented that 

DOE’s assertion that internally mounted 

drain heat exchangers would necessarily 

increase cabinet size is not true for all 

ice maker models. Moreover, 

Earthjustice stated, DOE has not 

considered options such as 

microchannel heat exchangers, which 

would increase both machine efficiency 

as well as available cabinet space within 

the ice maker. (Earthjustice, No. 47 at 

pp. 1–4) 

DOE has reconsidered its preliminary 

suggestion that external drain water heat 

exchangers cannot be considered part of 

an ice maker simply because they are 

not specifically mentioned in the EPCA 

definition, now concluding that they 

can be considered as a design option 

and to be part of a basic model ice 

maker, assuming that the drain water 

heat exchanger is sold and shipped with 

the unit and that the installation and 

operating instructions clearly reinforce 

this inclusion by detailing the 

installation requirements for the heat 

exchanger. 

Thus, DOE is including this 

technology as a design option. As NPCC 

noted, externally mounted drain water 

heat exchangers would provide energy 

savings by using ‘‘waste’’ water to cool 

the incoming potable water supply, thus 

reducing the amount of energy 

necessary to freeze the water into ice. 

Whereas internal heat exchangers may 

require increased cabinet size to fit 

within the ice maker, allowing external 

heat exchangers as a design option 

would prevent size increase. 

DOE has concluded that drain water 

heat exchangers, both internally 

mounted and externally mounted, are 

design options that can increase the 

energy efficiency of automatic 

commercial ice makers. The current test 

procedures would give manufacturers 

credit for efficiency improvement of 

drain water heat exchangers, including 

externally mounted drain water heat 

exchangers as long as they are provided 

with the machine and the installation 

instructions for the machine indicate 

that the heat exchangers are part of the 

machine and must be installed as part 

of the overall installation. 

d. Design Options That Necessitate 

Increased Cabinet Size 

Some of the design options 

considered by DOE in its technology 

assessment could require an increased 

cabinet size. Examples of such design 

options include increasing the surface 

area of the evaporator or condenser, or 

both. Larger heat exchangers would 

enable the refrigerant circuit to operate 

with an increased evaporating 

temperature and a decreased 

condensing temperature, thus reducing 

the temperature lift imposed on the 

refrigeration system and hence the 

compressor power input. In some cases 

the added refrigerant charge associated 

with increasing heat exchanger size 

could also necessitate the installation of 

a refrigerant receiver to ensure proper 

refrigerant charge management in all 

operating conditions for which the unit 

is designed, thus increasing the need for 

larger cabinet size. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE did 

not consider design options that 

increase cabinet size, and it requested 

comment on this approach. (DOE, 

Public Meeting Presentation, No. 29 at 

p. 35) 

Earthjustice observed that this issue, 

in which certain design options 

necessitate larger products and therefore 

larger installation costs, is common in 

rulemakings. Despite the potential 

difficulties that increased size could 

pose for ice maker manufacturers and 

customers, Earthjustice commented that 

the preliminary analysis is not 

necessarily the stage of the rulemaking 

in which such design options should be 

ruled out. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 46–47) 

At the February 2012 preliminary 

analysis public meeting, Manitowoc 

pointed out that the size of ice makers 

is severely limited in certain 

applications, which would make it 

difficult for manufacturers to implement 

design changes that reduce energy but 

require an increase in size. Manitowoc 

warned that DOE should not assume 

that all ice maker manufacturers can 

increase the sizes of their ice machines 

to meet standards. In many cases, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14872 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

31 Karas, A. A Field Study to Characterize Water 

And Energy Use of Commercial Ice-Cube Machines 

and Quantify Savings Potential. December 2007. 

Fisher-Nickel, Inc., San Ramon, CA. 

<www.fishnick.com/publications/fieldstudies/Ice_

Machine_Field_Study.pdf> 

according to Manitowoc, increasing the 

size may result in higher installation 

costs, which are not considered in 

DOE’s analysis. Manitowoc and AHRI 

both noted that a high percentage of the 

ice machine business involves replacing 

old units and that the size of new ice 

makers is therefore dictated by the size 

of the products being replaced. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 57–59 and No. 54 at p. 2; 

AHRI, No. 49 at p. 2) AHRI also 

commented that customers continue to 

demand smaller ice machines as the 

space used to house them competes 

against more ‘‘usable’’ spaces, such as 

hotel rooms. Hoshizaki agreed that the 

industry was moving toward smaller ice 

makers and also recommended that DOE 

limit cabinet size. Consequently, 

Manitowoc, AHRI, and Hoshizaki all 

commented that DOE should not 

consider design options that increase 

cabinet size in its analysis. (Manitowoc, 

No. 54 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 49 at p. 2; 

Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 1) 

Scotsman commented that, for 

products at the top of the capacity range 

within a given standard cabinet size, 

manufacturers cannot increase the size 

of internal components such as aircooled condensers without increasing 

the machines’ cabinet size. This would 

make the machines less competitive 

because they would no longer 

physically fit in certain applications, 

according to Scotsman. (Scotsman, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 

87–88) Moreover, Scotsman noted that 

assessing the impact of a technology on 

one type of machine and applying it to 

other types can be difficult and 

inaccurate. For example, while 

increasing condenser area could be 

simple for a 300-lb machine, it may 

require retooling several parts, in 

addition to increasing cabinet size and 

thus also increasing overall costs, to 

make the same condenser growth fit in 

a 600-lb machine. (Scotsman, No. 46 at 

p. 2) Finally, Scotsman stated that 

increasing the size of ice makers will 

cause cabinet costs to increase. 

(Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 64) Therefore, Scotsman 

agreed with its fellow manufacturers 

that DOE should avoid design options 

requiring cabinet size increases. 

(Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 4) 

Manitowoc commented that it is rare 

for manufacturers to have data regarding 

available space, ventilation, or other 

variables regarding the final installation 

of their products. Moreover, Manitowoc 

added that forcing an ice maker with 

larger cabinet size into an existing space 

that is too small for it would exacerbate 

condenser air recirculation, which 

decreases its efficiency and reliability. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 62–63) 

However, Scotsman also commented 

that an ice maker’s energy use typically 

decreases as its size increases, meaning 

that it may be more efficient to use an 

oversized machine than one that has 

been downsized. (Scotsman, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 61–62) 

Howe commented that the physical 

size of an automatic commercial ice 

maker has no effect on its efficiency or 

its run time. According to Howe, the run 

time of ice makers is a function of their 

productive capacity as well as the size 

of their ice storage bins, because ice 

production automatically ceases when 

the bin is full. Howe added that 

regulating the physical size of ice 

makers may limit the use of new, more 

efficient technologies in the future. 

Therefore, Howe urged DOE not to 

consider limiting the physical size of ice 

makers. (Howe, No. 51 at pp. 1–2) 

NEEA/NPCC also urged DOE not to 

consider limiting ice maker cabinet size 

in the rulemaking. NEEA/NPCC pointed 

out that, although improving the 

efficiency of an ice maker may require 

increasing the size of its components, 

many ice makers have sufficient room in 

their cabinets to accommodate such size 

increases. According to NEEA/NPCC, 

advanced evaporator designs could be 

used to meet efficiency and capacity 

requirements for ice makers whose 

evaporators already require the full 

cabinet size. (NEEA/NPCC, No. 50 at 

p. 2) 

CA IOUs agreed that DOE should not 

screen out design options that would 

require an increase in cabinet size. CA 

IOUs referred to a limited field study 

whose results indicated to CA IOUs that 

larger ice-making equipment may be 

accommodated in most situations. CA 

IOUs added that there is no evidence as 

to whether there may be another space 

in installation locations that could 

accommodate a larger ice maker. 

Therefore, CA IOUs asserted that, in the 

absence of a survey or field study that 

shows size constraints to be an issue, 

DOE should not use size to screen out 

design options. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at 

p. 3) 

Based on these comments from 

stakeholders, DOE understands that 

automatic commercial ice makers are 

often used in applications where space 

is very limited. DOE has not received 

any data supporting or refuting the 

characterization that installation 

locations may be able to accommodate 

larger icemakers. 

Although CA IOUs cited a study 

indicating that installation locations 

may be able to accommodate larger ice 

makers,31 the sample size of this study 

is extremely small and is not necessarily 

representative of the entire automatic 

commercial ice maker market. The 

study does not present any findings on 

the size constraints and allowances seen 

in the inspected products, and the 

pictures themselves are inconclusive. 

DOE believes it would be difficult to 

support any size-based conclusions 

using this study. 

Particularly because replacements 

comprise such a large portion of the ice 

maker industry, ice makers affected by 

the proposed standard must maintain 

traditional standard widths and depths. 

Allowing design options that necessitate 

physical size increases may push certain 

capacity units beyond their current 

standard dimensions and would thus 

force the use of lower-capacity 

machines in replacement applications, 

which would significantly reduce 

equipment utility. 

On the other hand, screening out sizeincreasing design options would 

eliminate from consideration 

technologies that could significantly 

reduce the energy consumption of 

automatic commercial ice makers. 

Consideration of design options that 

increase the size of ice makers is 

strongly related to consideration of sizeconstrained design options. DOE notes 

that, while stakeholders have pointed 

out that many automatic ice maker 

applications are space-constrained, as 

described in section IV.B.1.a, DOE does 

not have access to sufficiently-detailed 

data that would either indicate what 

percentage of applications could not 

allow size increase, or be the basis to set 

size limits for space-constrained classes. 

Thus, DOE has also decided not to 

create size-constrained equipment 

classes. 

DOE also notes that there are a wide 

range of product sizes within most 

equipment classes, and that DOE must 

seek out the most-efficient 

configurations. DOE noted that the 

equipment it purchased for reverse 

engineering inspections reflected a 

general trend that more-efficient units 

were often larger, had larger condensers, 

and in some cases had larger 

evaporators. Based on DOE’s market 

study and equipment inspections, larger 

chassis sizes appeared often to be a 

means of achieving higher efficiencies. 

Thus, DOE is including this packagesize-increasing technologies as design 

options in the NOPR analysis. DOE only 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14873 

applied these design options for those 

equipment classes where the 

representative baseline unit had space 

to grow relative to the largest units on 

the market. The equipment growth 

allowed for larger heat exchangers to 

increase equipment efficiency. 

For equipment classes with remote 

condensers, DOE only applied this 

design option to the condenser package, 

and not to the ice-making head that is 

placed indoors. In general, DOE only 

considered increasing the size of the 

evaporator whenever the product 

inspections (see section IV.D.4.e) 

indicated that it was needed to increase 

efficiency. 

In addition, DOE recognizes that 

space constraints are more critical for 

SCU units; hence, DOE did not consider 

package size growth for SCU equipment 

classes. 

Table IV.8 indicates for which 

analyzed equipment classes DOE 

considered chassis growing design 

options. 

TABLE IV.8—ANALYZED EQUIPMENT CLASSES WHERE DOE ANALYZED SIZE-INCREASING DESIGN OPTIONS

Unit Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours Used design options that increased size? 

IMH–A–Small–B ............................................................ 300 Yes. 

IMH–A–Large–B (med) .................................................. 800 Yes. 

IMH–A–Large–B (large) ................................................. 1,500 No. 

IMH–W–Small–B ........................................................... 300 Yes. 

IMH–W–Med–B ............................................................. 850 No. 

IMH–W–Large–B ........................................................... 2,600 No. 

RCU–XXX–Large–B (med) ............................................ 1,500 For the remote condenser, but not for the ice-making 

head. 

RCU–XXX–Large–B (large) ........................................... 2,400 For the remote condenser, but not for the ice-making 

head. 

SCU–A–Small–B ........................................................... 110 No. 

SCU–A–Large–B ........................................................... 200 No. 

SCU–W–Large–B .......................................................... 300 No. 

IMH–A–Small–C ............................................................ 310 No. 

IMH–A–Large–C (med) ................................................. 820 No. 

SCU–A–Small–C ........................................................... 110 No. 

Table IV.9 shows the size increases 

that DOE considered in the analysis. 

DOE only considered these size 

increases when a unit existed on the 

market that was larger than the baseline 

unit. DOE based the new chassis sizes 

on the sizes of current units on the 

market. 

TABLE IV.9—DESCRIPTION OF SIZE INCREASE DESIGN OPTIONS IN THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

Equipment class Equipment type Size descriptor Height 

inches 

Width 

inches 

Depth 

inches 

Volume 

cubic feet 

IMH–A–Small–B ...... IMH ................... Baseline .................. 16 .5 30 24 .5 7.02 

Growth ..................... 21 .5 30 24 .5 9.14 

IMH–A–Large–B 

(Med).

IMH ................... Baseline ..................

Growth .....................

26 

29 

30 

30 

24 

24 

10.83 

12.08 

IMH–W–Small–B ..... IMH ................... Baseline .................. 20 30 24 8.33 

Growth ..................... 23 .5 30 23 .5 9.59 

Further information on this analysis is 

available in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

e. Microchannel Heat Exchangers 

NEEA/NPCC, ASAP, and Earthjustice 

all recommended that DOE include 

microchannel heat exchanger 

technology in its examination of design 

options for improving condenser and 

evaporator efficiency. NEEA/NPCC 

noted that this technology has been 

used in heat exchangers for air handling 

equipment for years and it would allow 

for increased efficiency or greater ice 

production capacity. (NEEA/NPCC, No. 

50 at p. 2) ASAP commented that, 

although it is not aware of ice makers on 

the market that incorporate 

microchannel heat exchangers, ice 

maker manufacturers who have tested 

prototype units that implement this 

technology have noticed significant 

efficiency improvements. (ASAP, No. 52 

at p. 1) Finally, Earthjustice noted that 

microchannel heat exchanger 

technology would increase both 

machine efficiency and available 

cabinet space within the ice maker. 

(Earthjustice, No. 47 at pp. 1–4) 

DOE has not found evidence that this 

technology is cost-effective. Moreover, 

through discussions with 

manufacturers, DOE has learned of no 

instances of energy savings associated 

with the use of microchannel heat 

exchangers in ice makers. 

Manufacturers also noted that the 

reduced refrigerant charge associated 

with microchannel heat exchangers can 

be detrimental to the harvest 

performance of batch type ice makers, as 

there is not enough charge to transfer 

heat to the evaporator from the 

condenser. 

DOE contacted microchannel 

manufacturers to determine whether 

there were savings associated with use 

of microchannel heat exchangers in 

automatic commercial ice makers. These 

microchannel manufacturers noted that 

investigation of microchannel was 

driven by space constraints rather than 

efficiency. 

Because the potential for energy 

savings is inconclusive, based on DOE 

analysis as well as feedback from 

manufacturers and heat exchanger 

suppliers, and based on the potential 

utility considerations associated with 

compromised harvest performance in 

batch type ice makers associated with 

this heat exchanger technology’s 

reduced refrigerant charge, DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14874 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

screened out microchannel heat 

exchangers as a design option in this 

rulemaking. 

f. Smart Technologies 

CA IOUs recommended that DOE also 

consider including ‘‘smart’’ technologies 

as design options that will go beyond 

simple energy savings by capturing 

demand reductions as well. To support 

this proposition, CA IOUs referenced a 

study showing that, for automatic 

commercial ice-making equipment, 

there are 450 megawatts of demand 

reduction potential in California alone, 

indicating a significant nationwide 

possibility for reducing the energy 

demand associated with ice makers. If 

DOE does not include ‘‘smart’’ 

technologies as design options, CA IOUs 

instead asked that DOE comment on 

whether states will be allowed to 

implement such design option 

requirements for ice-making equipment. 

(CA IOUs, No. 56 at pp. 5–6) 

While there may be energy demand 

benefits associated with use of ‘‘smart 

technologies’’ in ice makers in that they 

reduce energy demand (e.g., shift the 

refrigeration system operation to a time 

of utility lower demand), DOE is not 

aware of any commercialized products 

or prototypes that also demonstrate 

improved energy efficiency in automatic 

commercial ice makers. Demand savings 

alone do not impact energy efficiency, 

and DOE cannot consider technologies 

that do not offer energy savings as 

measured by the test procedure. Since 

the scope of this rulemaking is to 

consider energy conservation standards 

that increase the energy efficiency of 

automatic commercial ice makers, not 

how they operate, for example, in 

relation to utility demand, this 

technology option has been screened 

out because it does not save energy as 

measured by the test procedure. 

g. Screening Analysis: General 

Comments 

Howe suggested that DOE gather 

information on a wider variety of design 

types of both batch and continuous type 

ice makers before completing its 

analyses, noting that DOE may have 

prematurely screened out design 

options simply because they had 

adverse effects on the ice makers within 

the small range of design parameters for 

which DOE collected data. (Howe, No. 

51 at p. 4) 

Howe has not provided specific 

examples of technologies that it has 

claimed that DOE prematurely screened 

out, so DOE is not in a position to 

respond. During the NOPR analysis, 

DOE analyzed additional units and 

accounted for this additional data in its 

engineering analysis. DOE considered a 

wide range of design types for ice 

makers, and screened out technologies 

as described in section IV.D. 

D. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis determines 

the manufacturing costs of achieving 

increased efficiency or decreased energy 

consumption. DOE historically has used 

the following three methodologies to 

generate the manufacturing costs 

needed for its engineering analyses: (1) 

The design-option approach, which 

provides the incremental costs of adding 

to a baseline model design options that 

will improve its efficiency; (2) the 

efficiency level approach, which 

provides the relative costs of achieving 

increases in energy efficiency levels, 

without regard to the particular design 

options used to achieve such increases; 

and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse 

engineering) approach, which provides 

‘‘bottom-up’’ manufacturing cost 

assessments for achieving various levels 

of increased efficiency, based on 

detailed data as to costs for parts and 

material, labor, shipping/packaging, and 

investment for models that operate at 

particular efficiency levels. 

As discussed in the Framework 

document and preliminary analysis, 

DOE conducted the engineering 

analyses for this rulemaking using a 

combined efficiency level/design 

option/reverse engineering approach to 

developing cost-efficiency curves for 

automatic commercial ice makers. DOE 

established efficiency levels defined as 

percent energy use lower than that of 

baseline efficiency products. DOE’s 

analysis is based on the efficiency 

improvements associated with groups of 

design options. Also, DOE developed 

manufacturing cost models based on 

reverse engineering of products to 

develop a baseline manufacturer 

production cost (MPC) and to support 

calculation of the incremental costs 

associated with improvement of 

efficiency. 

DOE selected a set of 25 equipment 

classes to analyze directly in the 

engineering analysis. To develop the 

analytically derived cost-efficiency 

curves, DOE collected information from 

various sources on the manufacturing 

cost and energy use reduction 

characteristics of each of the design 

options. DOE reviewed product 

literature, tested and conducted reverse 

engineering of 39 ice makers, and 

interviewed component vendors of 

compressors and fan motors. DOE also 

conducted interviews with 

manufacturers during the preliminary 

analysis. Additional details of the 

engineering analysis are available in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD and a copy 

of the engineering questionnaire is 

reproduced in appendix 12A of the 

NOPR TSD. 

Cost information from the vendor 

interviews and discussions with 

manufacturers provided input to the 

manufacturing cost model. DOE 

determined incremental costs associated 

with specific design options from both 

vendor information and the cost model. 

DOE modeled energy use reduction 

using the FREEZE program, which was 

developed in the 1990s and upgraded as 

part of the preliminary analysis. The 

reverse engineering, vendor interviews, 

and manufacturer interviews provided 

input for the energy analysis. The final 

incremental cost estimates and the 

energy modeling results together 

constitute the energy efficiency curves 

presented in the NOPR TSD chapter 5. 

DOE also considered conducting the 

engineering analysis using an efficiency 

level approach based on rated and/or 

measured energy use and manufacturing 

cost estimates based on reverse 

engineering data. DOE completed 

efficiency level analyses for several 

equipment classes but concluded that 

this approach was not viable, because 

the analysis suggested that cost would 

be reduced for higher efficiency designs 

for several of the equipment classes. 

This analysis is discussed in section 

IV.D.4.e and in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

1. Representative Equipment for 

Analysis 

In performing its engineering analysis, 

DOE selected representative units for 12 

equipment class to serve as analysis 

points in the development of costefficiency curves. In selecting these 

units, DOE selected models that were 

generally representative of the typical 

offerings produced within the given 

equipment class. DOE sought to select 

models having features and technologies 

typically found in the minimum 

efficiency equipment currently available 

on the market, but selected some models 

having features and technologies 

typically found in the highest efficiency 

equipment currently available on the 

market. 

2. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

EPCA, as amended by the EPACT 

2005, prescribed the following 

standards for batch type ice makers, 

shown in Table IV.10, effective January 

1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) For the 

engineering analysis, DOE used the 

existing batch type equipment standards 

as the baseline efficiency level for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14875 

32 Ice hardness is a term used for ice produced by 

continuous type ice makers, describing what 

percentage of the output is hard ice (as compared 

to water). 

equipment types under consideration in 

this rulemaking. Also, DOE applied the 

standards for equipment with harvest 

capacities up to 2,500 lb ice/24 hours as 

baseline efficiency levels for the larger 

batch type equipment with harvest 

capacities between 2,500 and 4,000 lb 

ice/24 hours, which are currently not 

regulated. DOE applied two exceptions 

to this approach, as discussed below. 

For the IMH–W–Small–B equipment 

class, DOE slightly adjusted the baseline 

energy use level to close a gap between 

the IMH–W–Small–B and the IMH–W– 

Medium–B equipment classes. For 

equipment in the IMH–A–Large–B 

equipment class with harvest capacity 

above 2,500 lb ice per 24 hours, DOE 

chose a baseline efficiency level equal to 

the current standard level at the 2,500 

lb ice per 24 hours capacity. In its 

analysis, DOE is treating the constant 

portion of the IMH–A–Large–B 

equipment class as a separate 

equipment class, IMH–A–Extended–B. 

Section IV.C contains more details of 

these adjustments. 

DOE is not proposing adjustment of 

maximum condenser water use 

standards for batch type ice makers. 

First, DOE’s authority does not extend 

to regulation of water use, except as 

explicitly provided by EPCA. Second, 

DOE determined that increasing 

condenser water use standards to allow 

for more water flow in order to reduce 

energy use is not cost-effective. The 

details of this analysis are available in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

For water-cooled batch equipment 

with harvest capacity less than 2,500 lb 

ice per 24 hours, the baseline condenser 

water use is equal to the current 

condenser water use standards for this 

equipment. 

For water-cooled equipment with 

harvest capacity greater than 2,500 lb 

ice per 24 hours, DOE proposes to set 

maximum condenser water standards 

equal to the current standard level for 

the same type of equipment with a 

harvest capacity of 2,500 lb ice per 24 

hours—the proposed standard level 

would not continue to drop as harvest 

capacity increases, as it does for 

equipment with harvest capacity less 

than 2,500 lb ice per 24 hours. 

TABLE IV.10—BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR BATCH ICE MAKERS

Equipment type Type of 

cooling 

Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice 

Maximum condenser 

water use * 

gal/100 lb ice 

Ice-Making Head ................ Water ....... <500 .................................. 7.79–0.0055H ** † ....................................... 200–0.022H. 

≥500 and <1,436 .............. 5.58–0.0011H ............................................. 200–0.022H. 

≥1,436 ............................... 4.0 ............................................................... 145. 

Air ............ <450 .................................. 10.26–0.0086H ........................................... Not Applicable. 

≥450 and <2,500 .............. 6.89–0.0011H ............................................. Not Applicable. 

≥2,500 ............................... 4.1 ............................................................... Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing (but 

not remote compressor).

Air ............ <1,000 ...............................

≥1,000 ...............................

8.85–0.0038H .............................................

5.10 .............................................................

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing and 

Remote Compressor.

Air ............ <934 ..................................

≥934 ..................................

8.85–0.0038H .............................................

5.30 .............................................................

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Self-Contained .................... Water ....... <200 .................................. 11.4–0.019H ............................................... 191–0.0. 

≥200 .................................. 7.60 ............................................................. For <2,500: 191–0.0315H 

For ≥2,500: 112. 

Air ............ <175 .................................. 18.0–0.0469H ............................................. Not Applicable. 

≥175 .................................. 9.80 ............................................................. Not Applicable. 

* Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

** H = rated harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given rated harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). 

† There is a gap between the existing IMH–W–Small–B standard and the IMH–W–Medium–B standard. The baseline equation for the IMH–W– 

Small–B equipment class was adjusted from 7.8—0.0055*H to 7.79—0.0055*H to close this gap. 

Currently there are no DOE energy 

standards for continuous type ice 

makers. During the preliminary 

analysis, DOE developed baseline 

efficiency levels using energy use data 

available from several sources, as 

discussed in chapter 3 of the 

preliminary TSD. DOE chose baseline 

efficiency levels that would be met by 

nearly all ice makers represented in the 

databases. Also, because energy use 

reported at the time DOE was preparing 

the preliminary analysis did not include 

the hardness adjustment prescribed by 

the new test procedure,32 DOE made 

these adjustments to the data. At that 

time, hardness data was also not 

generally available for ice makers; 

therefore, DOE used assumptions of 0.7 

ice hardness for flake ice makers and 

0.85 for nugget ice makers to make the 

hardness adjustments, thus estimating 

energy use as it would be measured by 

the new test procedure. 77 FR 3404 (Jan. 

24, 2012). DOE selected harvest capacity 

break points (harvest capacities at 

which the slopes of the trial baseline 

efficiency levels change) for all but the 

self-contained equipment classes 

consistent with those selected by the 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) 

for their new Tier 2 efficiency level for 

flake ice makers. Note that DOE did not 

also adopt the CEE energy use levels for 

any of its incremental efficiency levels 

because the CEE energy use levels do 

not incorporate adjustment of the 

measured energy use based on ice 

hardness. 

For the NOPR analysis, DOE used 

newly available information published 

in the AHRI Directory of Certified 

Product Performance, the California 

Energy Commission, the ENERGY STAR 

program, and vendor Web sites, to 

update its icemaker ratings database 

(‘‘DOE icemaker ratings database’’). In 

2012, AHRI published equipment 

ratings for many continuous type ice 

makers, including ice hardness factors 

calculated as prescribed by ASHRAE 

29–2009, which is incorporated by 

reference in the new DOE test 

procedure. DOE recreated its database 

for continuous type ice makers based on 

the available AHRI data, considering 

only the ice makers for which AHRI 

ratings for ice hardness were available. 

DOE also adjusted the harvest capacity 

break points for the continuous 

equipment classes based on the new 

data. 

The baseline efficiency levels for 

continuous type ice makers are 

presented in Table IV.11. They are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14876 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

compared with the ice maker energy use 

data in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD. For 

the remote condensing equipment, the 

large-capacity remote compressor and 

large-capacity non-remote compressor 

classes have been separated and are 

different by 0.2 kWh/100 lb, identical to 

the batch equipment differential. This 

differential is also discussed briefly in 

section IV.B.1.e. DOE requests 

comments on the development of 

efficiency levels for continuous type ice 

makers and whether the selected levels 

appropriately represent baseline 

equipment. 

TABLE IV.11—BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CONTINUOUS ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Equipment type Type of 

cooling 

Rated 

harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice * 

Maximum condenser water use * 

gal/100 lb ice 

Ice-Making Head ............................. Water ....... Small (<900) ...... 8.1–0.00333H ................................. 160–0.0176H. 

Large (≥900) ...... 5.1 ................................................... ≤2,500: 160–0.0176H; >2,500: 116. 

Air ............ Small (<700) ...... 11.0–0.00629H ............................... Not Applicable. 

Large (≥700) ...... 6.6 ................................................... Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing (Remote Compressor).Air ............ Small (<850) ......

Large (≥850) ......

10.2–0.00459H ...............................

6.3 ...................................................

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing (Non-remote 

Compressor).

Air ............ Small (<850) ......

Large (≥850) ......

10.0–0.00459H ...............................

6.1 ...................................................

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Self-Contained ................................. Water ....... Small (<900) ...... 9.1–0.00333H ................................. 153–0.0252H. 

Large (≥900) ...... 6.1 ................................................... ≤2,500: 153–0.0252H; >2,500: 90. 

Air ............ Small (<700) ...... 11.5–0.00629H ............................... Not Applicable. 

Large (≥700) ...... 7.1 ................................................... Not Applicable. 

* H = rated harvest rate in lb ice/24 hours. 

b. Incremental Efficiency Levels 

For each of the nine analyzed batch 

type ice-making equipment classes, DOE 

established a series of incremental 

efficiency levels for which it has 

developed incremental cost data and 

quantified the cost-efficiency 

relationship. DOE chose a set of 

analyzed equipment classes that would 

be representative of all batch type icemaking equipment classes, and grouped 

non-analyzed equipment classes with 

analyzed equipment classes accordingly 

in the downstream analysis. Table IV.12 

shows the selected incremental 

efficiency levels. 

For the IMH–A–Large–B equipment 

class, DOE is adopting its suggested 

approach from the preliminary analysis 

meeting. (DOE, Preliminary Analysis 

Public Meeting Presentation, No. 42 at 

p. 29) As part of this approach, DOE is 

treating the largest units as an extended 

equipment class (IMH–A–Extended–B), 

basing the analysis for this equipment 

class on the analysis for a 1,500 lb ice/ 

24 hour IMH–A–Large–B unit. When 

setting TSLs, DOE is considering the 

800 lb ice/24 hour IMH–A–Large–B 

analysis separately from the 1,500 lb 

ice/24 hour analysis. 

TABLE IV.12—INCREMENTAL EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR BATCH ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Equipment type * Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours EL 2 ** EL 3 (%) 

EL 4 

(%) 

EL 5 

(%) 

EL 6 

(%) 

IMH–W–Small–B ............................... <500 .................................................. 10% .................. 15 20 25 ................

IMH–W–Med–B ................................. ≥500 and <1,436 ............................... 10% .................. 15 20 ................ ................

IMH–W–Large–B ............................... ≥1,436 ............................................... 10% .................. 15 20 ................ ................

IMH–A–Small–B ................................ <450 .................................................. 10% (E–STAR †) 15 20 25 30 

IMH–A–Large–B‡ .............................. ≥450 .................................................. 10% (E–STAR †) 15 20 25 ................

RCU–NRC–Small–B *** ..................... <1,000 ............................................... 9% (E–STAR †) 15 20 ................ ................

RCU–NRC–Large–B ......................... ≥1,000 ............................................... 9% (E–STAR †) 15 20 ................ ................

RCU–RC–B ....................................... <934 .................................................. 9% (E–STAR †) 15 20 ................ ................

≥934 .................................................. 9% (E–STAR †) 15 20 ................ ................

SCU–W–Small–B *** ......................... <200 .................................................. 7% .................... 15 20 25 30 

SCU–W–Large–B .............................. ≥200 .................................................. 7% .................... 15 20 25 30 

SCU–A–Small–B ............................... <175 .................................................. 7% (E–STAR †) 15 20 25 30 

SCU–A–Large–B ............................... ≥175 .................................................. 7% (E–STAR †) 15 20 25 30 

* See Table III.1 for a description of these abbreviations. 

** EL = efficiency level; EL 1 is the baseline efficiency level, while EL 2 through EL 6 represent increased efficiency levels. 

*** These equipment classes were not directly analyzed. 

† New ENERGY STAR levels became effective on February 1, 2013. These levels represent the ENERGY STAR levels prior to February 1,

2013. ‡The IMH–A–Large–B levels were analyzed at the 800 lb ice/24 hour size and the 1,500 lb ice/24 hour size, and the 1,500 lb ice/24 hour size 

were used to set standards for the new IMH–A–Extended–B class. 

For each of the three analyzed 

continuous type ice maker equipment 

classes, DOE established a series of 

incremental efficiency levels, for which 

it has developed incremental cost data 

and quantified the cost-efficiency 

relationship. DOE chose a set of 

analyzed equipment classes that would 

be representative of all continuous type 

ice-making equipment classes, and 

grouped non-analyzed equipment 

classes with analyzed equipment classes 

accordingly in the downstream analysis, 

as discussed in section V.A.1. Table 

IV.13 shows the selected incremental 

efficiency levels. The efficiency levels 

are defined by the percent energy use 

less than the baseline energy use. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14877 

TABLE IV.13—SELECTED INCREMENTAL EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CONTINUOUS TYPE ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Equipment type * 

Rated harvest 

rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

EL 2 ** 

(%) 

EL 3 

(%) 

EL 4 

(%) 

EL 5 

(%) 

EL 6 

(%) 

IMH–W–Small–C ...................................... <900 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

IMH–W–Large–C ..................................... ≥900 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

IMH–A–Small–C ....................................... <700 10 15 20 25 30 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................... ≥700 10 15 20 25 30 

RCU–Small–C .......................................... <850 Not Analyzed. 

RCU–Large–C .......................................... ≥850 Not Analyzed. 

SCU–W–Small–C ..................................... <900 Not Analyzed. 

SCU–W–Large–C .................................... ≥900 No existing products on the market. 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................... <700 7 15 20 25 ........................

SCU–A–Large–C ..................................... ≥700 No existing products on the market. 

* See Table III.1 for a description of these abbreviations. 

** EL 1 is the baseline efficiency level, while EL 2 through EL 6 represent increased efficiency levels. 

DOE selected the efficiency levels for 

the continuous type ice makers based on 

the levels proposed in the preliminary 

analysis. 

c. IMH–A–Large–B Treatment 

The current DOE energy conservation 

standard for large air-cooled IMH cube 

type ice makers is represented by an 

equation for which maximum allowable 

energy usage decreases linearly as 

harvest rate increases from 450 to 2,500 

lb ice/24 hours. Extending the current 

IMH–A–Large–B equation to the 4,000 

lb ice/24 hours range would result in 

efficiency levels in the newly covered 

range (between 2,500 lb/day and 4,000 

lb/day) that may not be technically 

feasible. For example, at 4,000 lb ice/24 

hours, the specified baseline energy use 

would be 2.49 kWh/100 lb, a value far 

below the energy consumption of 

existing IMH–A–Large–B ice makers 

(e.g., it is 39 percent lower than the 

lowest rating for IMH–A–Large–B 

equipment of which DOE is aware, 4.1 

kWh/100 lb). In the preliminary 

analysis, DOE proposed establishing 

baseline and incremental efficiency 

levels for this equipment class that 

maintain a constant level of energy use 

at higher harvest capacities, with 

exceptions in certain harvest capacity 

ranges to avoid backsliding. For 

example, for efficiency level 2, DOE 

proposed that (a) between 1,600 and 

2,080 lb ice/24 hours, the maximum 

energy use would be independent of 

harvest capacity, as is the case for all 

other high-harvest-capacity equipment 

classes, (b) between 2,080 lb ice/24 

hours, the maximum energy usage 

would be calculated according to the 

current standard to avoid EPCA antibacksliding provisions, and (c) between 

2,500 and 4,000 lb ice/24 hours, the 

maximum energy use would remain 

constant. DOE presented this approach 

in the preliminary analysis and 

requested comment on it; DOE did not 

receive any comments on this approach. 

Hence, DOE is proposing to use the 

approach it outlined in the preliminary 

analysis meeting for the IMH–A–Large– 

B equipment class (DOE, Preliminary 

Analysis Public Meeting Presentation, 

No. at p. 29). Further, DOE proposes to 

separate capacity ranges of this class 

into ranges designated IMH–A–B and 

IMH–A–Extended–B, the first for 

equipment with harvest capacity less 

than 1,500 lb ice/24 hours and the 

second with greater harvest capacity. 

The proposed IMH–A–B efficiency 

levels would be constant between 800 

and 1,500 lb ice/24 hours. Each 

proposed IMH–A–Extended–B 

efficiency level would start at an energy 

use that is equal to that of one of IMH– 

A–B efficiency levels. Its energy use 

would remain constant at this level 

within its lower range of harvest 

capacity rates, but would follow the 

current DOE standard between the 

harvest capacity for which the constant 

level equals the current DOE standard 

and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. Beyond 2,500 

lb ice/24 hours, it would remain 

constant from 2,500 to 4,000 lb ice/24 

hours. 

d. Maximum Available Efficiency 

Equipment 

For the NOPR analysis, DOE 

considered the most-efficient equipment 

available on the market, known as 

maximum available equipment. In some 

cases, the maximum available 

equipment uses technology options that 

DOE chose to screen out for its analysis. 

Hence, DOE also identified maximum 

available equipment without screened 

technologies (see the discussion of the 

engineering analysis in section IV.D.2.f). 

The technologies that are used in some 

maximum available equipment that 

were screened out include low thermalmass evaporators and tube evaporators 

for batch type ice makers. 

Efficiency levels for maximum 

available equipment in the batch type 

ice-making equipment classes are 

tabulated in Table V.16. This 

information is based on DOE’s icemaker 

ratings database (also see data in chapter 

3 of the NOPR TSD). The efficiency 

levels are represented as an energy use 

percentage reduction compared to the 

energy use of baseline-efficiency 

equipment, the selection of which is 

discussed in section IV.D.2.a. 

TABLE IV.14—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR

MAXIMUM AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT IN

BATCH ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT

CLASSES

Equipment class Energy use lower than 

baseline 

IMH–W–Small–B 24.5%. 

IMH–W–Med–B ... 22.4%. 

IMH–W–Large–B 7.5% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours). 

8.3% (at 2,600 lb ice/24 

hours). 

IMH–A–Small–B .. 23.6%. 

IMH–A–Large–B .. 20.7% (at 800 lb ice/24 

hours). 

21.3% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours). 

RCU–Small–B ..... 24.6%. 

RCU–Large–B ..... 40.2% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours). 

26.7% (at 2,400 lb ice/24 

hours). 

SCU–W–Small–B 22.5%. 

SCU–W–Large–B 27.6%. 

SCU–A–Small–B 35.8%. 

SCU–A–Large–B 29.6%.* 

* This is the second highest rated product; 

the highest rated product is also a dispenser 

unit. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14878 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Efficiency levels for maximum 

available equipment in the continuous 

type ice-making equipment classes are 

tabulated in Table IV.15. This 

information is based on a survey of 

product databases and manufacturer 

Web sites (also see data in chapter 3 of 

the TSD). The efficiency levels are 

represented as an energy use percentage 

reduction compared to the energy use of 

baseline-efficiency equipment, the 

selection for which is discussed in 

section IV.D.2.a. DOE used the 

maximum available efficiency levels to 

calibrate its engineering analysis against 

current equipment. 

TABLE IV.15—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR

MAXIMUM AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT

FOR CONTINUOUS TYPE ICE MAKER

EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Equipment class Energy use lower than 

baseline 

IMH–W–Small–C 16.5%. 

IMH–W–Large–C 12.2% (at 1,000 lb ice/24 

hours). 

8.6% (at 1,800 lb ice/24 

hours). 

IMH–A–Small–C .. 25.3%. 

IMH–A–Large–C 8.1% (at 820 lb ice/24 

hours). 

17.0% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours). 

RCU–Small–C ..... 18.4%. 

RCU–Large–C ..... 18.5%. 

SCU–W–Small–C 18.7%.* 

SCU–W–Large–C No equipment on the 

market.* 

SCU–A–Small–C 24.4%. 

SCU–A–Large–C No equipment on the 

market.* 

* DOE’s inspection of currently available 

equipment revealed that there are no available 

products in the defined SCU–W–Large–C and 

SCU–A–Large–C equipment classes at this 

time. 

e. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Efficiency Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt (or not 

adopt) an amended or new energy 

conservation standard for a type or class 

of covered equipment such as automatic 

commercial ice makers, it determines 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible for such equipment. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 6313(d)(4)) 

Accordingly, in the preliminary 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

automatic commercial ice makers in the 

engineering analysis using energy 

modeling and the design options that 

passed the screening analysis. As part of 

the NOPR analysis, DOE modified its 

energy use analysis. In addition, DOE 

considered a different range of design 

options. Evaluation of maximum 

technological feasibility was again based 

on energy modeling, but DOE compared 

energy modeling results with maximum 

available without screened technologies 

to ensure consistency of results with 

actual designs at that level. See chapter 

5 of the NOPR TSD for the results of the 

analyses, and a list of technologies 

included in max-tech equipment. 

The max-tech efficiency levels 

represent equipment combining all of 

the design options. However, they are 

not generally attained by existing 

equipment—this is largely due to the 

consideration of design options seldom 

used in commercially available 

equipment because they are not 

considered to be cost-effective by 

manufacturers, such as brushless DC 

motors and drain water heat exchangers. 

DOE does not screen out design options 

based on cost-effectiveness. 

Table III.2 and Table III.3 show the 

max-tech levels determined in the 

engineering analysis for batch and 

continuous type automatic commercial 

ice makers, respectively. 

TABLE IV.16—MAX-TECH LEVELS FOR

BATCH AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE

MAKERS

Equipment type * Energy use lower than 

baseline 

IMH–W–Small–B 30%. 

IMH–W–Med–B ... 22%. 

IMH–W–Large–B 17% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours). 

16% (at 2,600 lb ice/24 

hours). 

IMH–A–Small–B .. 33%. 

IMH–A–Large–B .. 33% (at 800 lb ice/24 

hours). 

21% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours). 

RCU–Small–B ..... Not analyzed. 

RCU–Large–B ..... 21% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours). 

21% (at 2,400 lb ice/24 

hours). 

SCU–W–Small–B Not analyzed. 

SCU–W–Large–B 35%. 

SCU–A–Small–B 41%. 

SCU–A–Large–B 36%. 

* IMH is ice-making head; RCU is remote 

condensing unit; SCU is self-contained unit; W 

is water-cooled; A is air-cooled; Small refers to 

the lowest harvest category; Med refers to the 

Medium category (water-cooled IMH only); 

Large refers to the large size category; RCU 

units were modeled as one with line losses 

used to distinguish standards. 

TABLE IV.17—MAX-TECH LEVELS FOR

CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment type Energy use lower than 

baseline 

IMH–W–Small–C Not analyzed. 

IMH–W–Large–C Not analyzed. 

IMH–A–Small–C .. 25.3%. 

IMH–A–Large–C 17% (at 820 lb ice/24 

hours). 

RCU–Small–C ..... Not analyzed. 

RCU–Large–C ..... Not analyzed. 

SCU–W–Small–C Not analyzed. 

SCU–W–Large– 

C.* 

No units available. 

SCU–A–Small–C 24%. 

SCU–A–Large– 

C.* 

No units available. 

* DOE’s investigation of equipment on the 

market revealed that there are no existing 

products in either of these two equipment 

classes (as defined in this NOPR). 

f. Comment Discussion 

Impact of the Variability of Ice Hardness 

Measurements on Efficiency Levels for 

Continuous Type Ice Maker Equipment 

Manitowoc noted that there are no 

industry standards for the calorimetric 

values of different types of ice and 

cautioned that DOE’s assumptions for 

these calorimetric values may invalidate 

its analysis of manufacturer-supplied 

data. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 51–52) 

Hoshizaki recommended that ice 

hardness have one standard that 

incorporates all continuous type ice 

maker data and added that DOE should 

readdress the baseline for continuous 

type ice-making equipment after taking 

AHRI’s 2012 ice hardness verification 

testing into account. (Hoshizaki, No. 53 

at p. 1) 

Howe recommended that DOE 

supplement its data on continuous type 

ice makers by including results from 

tests using the current test procedure, 

adding that information on continuous 

type ice makers has changed drastically 

as of late. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that some of these 

comments were made before AHRI had 

completed verification testing work that 

is mentioned by Hoshizaki. DOE 

updated its database over the course of 

2012, as many of the continuous type 

ice maker data in AHRI’s database were 

updated, and hardness data was 

provided. DOE has primarily used this 

data, supplemented by DOE test data 

(including hardness test data) to 

evaluate the energy consumption 

characteristics of continuous type icemaking equipment and to set efficiency 

levels. 

DOE notes that, consistent with 

Hoshizaki’s suggestion, the proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14879 

33See www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037-0043. After the February 

2012 preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE 

published cost-efficiency curves showing the 

relationship of efficiency levels to design options 

for each directly analyzed equipment class. 

standards for continuous type ice 

makers use one metric that combines ice 

quality and energy usage. In addition, 

DOE has not proposed use of the 

Canadian efficiency levels for 

continuous type ice makers. The 

proposed efficiency levels for 

continuous type ice makers are 

discussed in sections IV.D.2.a and 

IV.D.2.b. 

Correlation of Efficiency Levels With 

Design Options 

Manitowoc expressed confusion over 

the relationship between the efficiency 

levels and the technology options that 

go into those efficiency levels. 

Therefore, Manitowoc requested that 

DOE provide additional information to 

explain which technology options were 

associated with each efficiency level. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 51) 

Manitowoc pointed out that one of the 

SCU-air-cooled models used for the 

max-available efficiency level is actually 

a combined ice machine and hotel 

dispenser, and as such is not a 

representative example of the SCU 

category, which generally consists of 

undercounter designs. Manitowoc 

further stated that its larger size would 

allow the model to achieve higher 

efficiencies than would normally be 

possible for the majority of SCU aircooled models. Therefore, Manitowoc 

commented, this model should not be 

used to justify the max-available 

efficiency attainable for this category of 

ice makers. (Manitowoc, No. 54 at pp. 

2–3) 

In response to Manitowoc’s comment 

regarding the relationship of design 

options and efficiency levels, DOE 

provided additional information in the 

automatic commercial ice maker docket, 

as a supporting and related material 

document 33 (DOE, Preliminary Analysis 

Presentation Supplementary 

Engineering Data, No. 43). The data in 

this document reflects the preliminary 

engineering analysis. For the NOPR 

analysis, the relationship between 

design options and efficiency levels has 

changed due to changes made to the 

design options considered, assumptions, 

and analysis approach. The new 

information is detailed in sections 

IV.D.4.a (cost model adjustments) and 

IV.D.4.f (energy model adjustments) and 

in the NOPR TSD chapter 5. 

DOE notes that Manitowoc is correct 

in its observation that one of the maxavailable SCU models from the 

preliminary analysis is not 

representative of the undercounter units 

that make up the majority of the SCU 

category. DOE had intended to avoid 

inclusion of oversize SCU models that 

are not suitable for undercounter design 

in its establishment of maximum 

technology for SCU equipment classes. 

DOE has reviewed the maximum 

technology designations and has 

removed all ice maker-dispenser 

combinations from consideration in its 

analysis. 

RCU Class Efficiency Level Differential 

In its preliminary engineering 

analysis, DOE concluded that the 0.2 

kWh per 100 lb ice differential in 

maximum allowable energy use for 

large-sized batch RCU ice makers with 

remote compressors as compared with 

those with compressors in the icemaking heads is appropriate, both for 

batch and continuous type ice makers. 

(DOE, Preliminary Analysis Public 

Meeting Presentation, No. 29 at p. 30) 

DOE requested comment on this 

conclusion. 

Manitowoc confirmed that the 0.2 

kWh per 100 lb of ice difference in 

energy use between these two classes of 

RCUs seemed valid and that it was 

reasonable to continue using this value 

while developing the new standards. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 44 and No. 54 at p. 3) CA 

IOUs stated that its analysis of product 

data indicates that RCUs with and 

without dedicated remote compressors 

do not consume significantly different 

levels of energy. CA IOUs thus 

suggested that DOE continue to look at 

product performance data and customer 

utility in order to determine whether 

separate equipment classes and 

efficiency levels are necessary for these 

two types of RCU units. (CA IOUs, No. 

56 at p. 2) 

Consistent with the comment from 

Manitowoc, DOE plans to continue 

using this differential of 0.2 kWh per 

100 lb of ice to differentiate between 

RCUs with and without remote 

compressors. 

Batch Efficiency Levels for HighCapacity Ice Maker 

DOE has established baseline and 

incremental efficiency levels for largecapacity ice makers in the newly 

extended capacity between 2,500 and 

4,000 lb ice/24 hours. 

AHRI noted that the current efficiency 

standard for high-capacity batch 

machines was established based on the 

performance of ice makers available in 

the marketplace and that extending this 

efficiency level to ice makers with 

capacities exceeding 2,500 lb ice/24 

hours may not be appropriate. AHRI 

recommended that DOE either select 

and analyze products in this capacity 

range or refrain from regulating these 

products if there are not actually enough 

high-capacity batch machines available 

for DOE to analyze. (AHRI, No. 49 at pp. 

3–4) 

Manitowoc stated that efficiency 

curves are typically flat for icemakers 

with capacities above 2,000 to 2,500 lb 

ice/24 hours and noted that this 

phenomenon is driven mainly by trends 

in compressor efficiencies, which have 

decreasing efficiency gains above a 

certain size. Additionally, Manitowoc 

commented that it tends to use multiple 

evaporators for large-capacity machines, 

rather than making new evaporators for 

every size, so its overall evaporator 

performance also does not improve 

significantly over a certain size. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 48–49) 

However, Manitowoc also commented 

that DOE did not adequately analyze the 

efficiency of ice machines in the 2,000 

to 4,000 lb ice/24 hour capacity range. 

Manitowoc suggested that it is likely 

that, above a certain capacity, DOE will 

find that the relative benefit of some 

design options to be lower due to the 

relatively higher efficiency of the 

baseline components already in use. 

(Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 3) 

Howe commented that most highcapacity ice makers are inherently more 

efficient than their lower-capacity 

counterparts and thus cannot be 

expected to achieve the same 

incremental efficiency gains. Howe 

added that, if incremental efficiency 

gains do indeed vary significantly by 

harvest capacity, equipment class 

definitions may need to change. (Howe, 

No. 51 at pp. 2–3) 

Hoshizaki recommended that DOE 

make equipment plots for high-capacity 

batch models in order to compare 

existing models against the proposed 

efficiency levels. (Hoshizaki, No. 53 at 

p. 2) 

Hoshizaki commented that DOE needs 

to analyze the available data for all 

eligible RCU models rather than just 

relying on software assumptions to 

inform its analysis. Hoshizaki added 

that there is not enough data available 

for DOE to adequately assess highcapacity (>2,500 lb ice/24 hours) RCU 

energy use and recommended that 

manufacturers provide input to DOE 

regarding these high-capacity units. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 1) 

In response to AHRI, DOE reiterates 

that there is precedence for setting 

standards for capacity ranges for which 

equipment is not being sold, including 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14880 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

when DOE adopted standards for aircooled IMH cube type ice makers up to 

2,500 lb ice/24 hours, even though no 

such equipment is manufactured with 

capacities above 1,650 lb ice/24 hours. 

DOE simply is extending the capacity 

range of the standard for consistency 

with the applicability of the test 

procedure. DOE notes that it has 

proposed efficiency levels for the larger 

ice makers that, to the extent possible, 

do not change as a function of harvest 

capacity. Manitowoc’s comments 

suggest that larger-capacity ice 

machines would have comparable 

efficiency level as compared with lowercapacity machines, and Howe’s 

comments suggest that larger-capacity 

ice machines are inherently more 

efficient. Hence, the constant energy use 

efficiency level would be appropriate. 

The commenters did not highlight any 

other specific factors that would suggest 

that the constant energy use approach is 

inappropriate. Examination of the 

limited available data showing rated 

energy use as a function of harvest 

capacity certainly supports the 

approach, even though there is much 

less data to consider that at the lower 

capacity levels. 

In response to Manitowoc’s comment 

regarding analysis of batch type ice 

makers in the 2,000 to 4,000 lb ice/24 

hours harvest capacity range, DOE notes 

that it has conducted analysis for three 

of these products—given the limited 

number of such products available, this 

likely represents a greater percentage of 

the available products than DOE 

evaluated at lower-harvest-capacity 

rates. Because, as mentioned by 

Manitowoc, efficiency characteristics of 

the components of ice makers such as 

compressors and evaporators no longer 

improve as capacity increases, it is 

reasonable to expect that ice maker 

efficiency will also remain constant at 

high-harvest-capacity rates. For this 

reason, it is appropriate to represent 

performance of the full harvest capacity 

range with the available ice makers of 

the highest harvest capacities, as DOE 

has done. 

In response to Howe’s comment, DOE 

has not considered reductions in 

efficiency at constant kilowatt-hours per 

100 lb ice levels across the harvest 

capacity range. Instead, DOE has 

considered reductions in energy use in 

terms of percentages of baseline energy 

use. Hence, the energy use reductions 

associated with the incremental 

efficiency levels would be significantly 

less for a large-harvest-capacity ice 

maker with an already inherently low 

energy use than it would for a lowerharvest-capacity ice maker. Further, if 

the larger-capacity ice makers are 

inherently more efficient, as Howe 

contends, DOE’s approach using 

efficiency levels that do not vary with 

capacity should not be overly 

aggressive, i.e. setting efficiency levels 

too stringently. 

With respect to Hoshizaki’s 

recommendation regarding examination 

of efficiency plots, DOE has reviewed 

energy use data for all products for 

which such data is available. The 

maximum efficiency levels considered 

in the analysis are not generally attained 

by existing equipment—this is largely 

due to the consideration of design 

options often considered not to be costeffective by manufacturers, such as 

brushless DC motors and drain water 

heat exchangers. However, DOE’s 

analysis results compared well to the 

maximum available without screened 

technologies efficiency level. 

In response to the second comment 

from Hoshizaki, DOE notes that the 

analysis for high-capacity units 

considered several pieces of 

information, including available 

performance rating data of the AHRI 

database and confidential interviews 

with manufacturers. A significant 

amount of the information obtained 

from manufacturers in confidential 

interviews was obtained during the 

NOPR phase, in part in response to 

preliminary analysis phase comments, 

such as the Hoshizaki comment, 

recommending some information 

exchange. In addition, DOE purchased 

and conducted reverse engineering on 

the largest-capacity batch and 

continuous type ice makers made by the 

manufacturers that comprise 90 percent 

or greater share of the ice maker market. 

DOE also conducted energy testing on a 

few of these ice makers. DOE believes 

that its analysis of RCU equipment is 

representative of the large-capacity 

equipment classes. Additional 

information on the teardown analysis is 

available in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

Discrepancies Between Maximum 

Technology Levels and Most-Efficient 

Equipment Available in the Marketplace 

NPCC, ASAP, and NEEA/NPCC 

commented on the max-tech efficiency 

levels (i.e., least energy consumptive 

level) and that, in some cases, max-tech 

levels were less efficient than the mostefficient level on the marketplace (i.e., 

‘‘max-available’’ energy level). NPCC 

further commented that DOE should 

indicate whether this discrepancy is due 

to technologies that were screened out. 

NEEA/NPCC pointed to products in a 

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 

database that surpassed DOE’s max-tech 

levels. (NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 45–46; ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 

50; NEEA/NPCC, No. 50 at pp. 2–4) 

NPCC also recommended that DOE 

investigate whether there are superior 

technologies on the market that were 

not being analyzed simply because of 

the way max-tech is defined. NPCC 

added that the process by which design 

options are screened out should be very 

deliberate. (NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 53–54) 

Scotsman noted that, even within a 

single equipment class, maximum 

technology levels will differ among 

models. For example, although DOE is 

considering compressor upgrade as a 

design option, many ice maker units are 

already using the most-efficient 

compressor suitable to their respective 

applications. Scotsman added that the 

analytical model used to calculate 

energy use for max-tech levels had not 

been validated and was thus unreliable. 

(Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 4) 

DOE acknowledges that there are 

units on the market that surpass the 

max-tech levels it proposed for the 

preliminary analysis. In some cases 

maximum available efficiency units 

include technologies that DOE had 

decided not to consider. For example, 

some max-tech units utilize proprietary 

technologies that are not available to the 

majority of manufacturers and were 

screened out in the screening analysis. 

Due to these differences, DOE’s maxtech efficiency levels did not always 

exceed the max-available levels found 

on the market. Because they are 

representative of the whole market, 

DOE’s max-tech levels must take into 

account issues with proprietary 

technologies as well as utility issues 

stemming from certain technologies 

(such as chassis size increases or ice 

cube shapes). 

In the NOPR phase, DOE made several 

changes to the preliminary analysis. 

These changes included: 

• Adding a design option to allow for 

growth of the unit to increase the size 

of the condenser and/or evaporator; 

• adjusting assumptions regarding 

maximum compressor EER levels based 

on additional research and confidential 

input from manufacturers; 

• adjusting potable water 

consumption rates for batch type ice 

makers subject to a floor that represents 

the lowest potable water consumption 

rate that would be expected to flush out 

dissolved solid reliably; 

• adding a design option to allow 

condenser growth in water-cooled 

condensers; and 

• adding a drain water heat exchanger 

design option. 

These changes have led to new maxtech levels. These levels are compared 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14881 

to the most-efficient levels available on 

the market in Table IV.18. The levels are 

also compared with the most-efficient 

levels available that do not use 

technologies that DOE screened out in 

the screening analysis (called ‘‘max 

available without screened 

technologies’’). Specifically, for batch 

type ice makers, the differences between 

these two max available market levels 

are that the max using analyzed 

technologies levels do not consider (a) 

low-thermal-mass evaporators, and (b) 

tube ice evaporators. The new max-tech 

levels all exceed the ‘‘max available 

without screened technologies’’ 

efficiency levels. DOE also notes that 

this discrepancy only existed for batch 

units, as DOE did not screen out any 

continuous unit technologies in its 

engineering analysis. 

DOE considered max-tech and maxavailable levels as part of its analysis. 

The max-tech levels for batch and 

continuous type ice makers are 

discussed in section IV.D.2.e. In 

addition to comparing the max-tech, 

‘‘most efficient on market’’, and the 

‘‘max available without screened 

technologies’’ efficiency levels for batch 

type ice makers. Table IV.18 provides 

brief explanations for the differences 

between max-available and max-tech 

levels. More details regarding the design 

options that correlate with the different 

efficiency levels are provided in the 

NOPR TSD. DOE requests comments on 

the max-tech levels identified in today’s 

NOPR, the max available and max 

available without screened technologies 

levels, and the reasons cited for the max 

tech/max available differences. 

TABLE IV.18—COMPARISON OF LEVELS FOR BATCH AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment class Max-tech level 

Max-available 

without 

screened technologies 

(%) 

Max-available 

(%) 

Reason for gap between maxavailable and max available without screened technologies 

IMH–W–Small–B ........................... 30% ............................................... 22.0 24.5 Proprietary technology. 

IMH–W–Med–B ............................. 22% ............................................... 15.7 22.4 Proprietary technology. 

IMH–W–Large–B ........................... 16% (at 2,600 lb ice/24 hours) ..... 8.3 22.5 Proprietary technology and utility 

issues. 

IMH–A–Small–B ............................ 33% ............................................... 23.6 23.6 No gap. 

IMH–A–Large–B ............................ 33% (at 800 lb ice/24 hours) ........

21% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours) .....

20.7 21.3 proprietary technology. 

RCU–NRC–Small–B ..................... Not analyzed ................................. 24.6 24.6 No gap. 

RCU–NRC–Large–B ..................... 21% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours) .....

21% (at 2,400 lb ice/24 hours) .....

15.7 40.2 Proprietary technology and utility 

issues. 

RCU–RC–Small–B ........................ Not directly analyzed .................... 19.0 19.0 No gap. 

RCU–RC–Large–B ........................ Not directly analyzed .................... 15.1 15.1 No gap. 

SCU–W–Small–B .......................... Not directly analyzed .................... 22.2 22.5 Proprietary technology. 

SCU–W–Large–B .......................... 35% ............................................... 27.6 32.9 Proprietary technology. 

SCU–A–Small–B ........................... 41% ............................................... 27.4 35.8 Proprietary technology. 

SCU–A–Large–B ........................... 36% ............................................... 29.6 33.4 Proprietary technology. 

Baseline Efficiency Levels for Currently 

Unregulated Ice Makers 

For continuous and high-capacity 

batch type ice makers, AHRI 

recommended that DOE derive its 

baseline efficiency levels from machines 

that are currently on the market, for 

which AHRI’s new directory of certified 

products could be a useful information 

source. AHRI cautioned, however, that 

its certification program was new and 

that it expected the data to change after 

completion of its 2012 test program. 

(AHRI, No. 49 at p. 3) 

Manitowoc asserted that, while 

EPACT 2005 is the correct baseline 

efficiency level for batch equipment, 

continuous type ice machines do not 

have sufficient history under any 

alternative certification programs and 

therefore require careful review and 

analysis by DOE prior to setting 

efficiency levels. (Manitowoc, No. 54 at 

p. 3) 

Hoshizaki asserted that DOE should 

not use Canadian levels for continuous 

type ice makers and instead suggested 

that DOE use efficiency levels 

developed for machines that are 

currently on the market. (Hoshizaki, No. 

53 at p. 1) 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

proposed a set of equations to represent 

baseline efficiency levels for the 12 

continuous equipment classes. 77 FR 

3404 (Jan. 24, 2012). The equations were 

developed based on publicly available 

information of continuous type ice 

maker energy use for products on the 

market. As there was no source of ice 

quality data for most of these products 

to allow calculation of the energy use 

consistent with the new test procedure, 

which calls for adjustment of the rating 

to account for ice hardness, DOE made 

these adjustments using ice hardness 

equal to 0.85 for nugget ice makers and 

0.8 for flake ice makers. Further details 

of this analysis are available in the 

preliminary analysis TSD. 

DOE revised its development of 

continuous type ice maker efficiency 

levels for the NOPR, based on data for 

continuous type ice machines that was 

available on the AHRI database Web site 

as of October 11, 2012. The database 

now contains ratings for ice quality, 

which DOE incorporated into its 

analysis. DOE’s analyses consider 

higher max tech levels than the max 

available levels, as represented by the 

AHRI data, because the analysis 

considers use of design options, such as 

higher efficiency permanent magnet 

motors, which are not used in the 

majority of existing ice makers. DOE’s 

continuous baseline levels for the NOPR 

analysis are presented in Table IV.11. 

DOE has taken advantage of the new 

information for continuous type ice 

makers that has become available on the 

AHRI Web site to support its selection 

of efficiency levels for these equipment 

classes. 

General Methodology 

Howe asked that DOE further clarify 

the methodology it used to establish 

efficiency and technology levels, 

especially for equipment classes in 

which there are few models available. 

Howe also asked whether DOE 

considered the refrigerating conditions 

used to produce ice or the typical 

efficiency levels associated with the 

refrigeration system. (Howe, No. 51 at 

p. 3) 

DOE does not have sufficient 

resources to thoroughly analyze all 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14882 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

equipment classes. Hence, the analyses 

for some classes are used to represent 

other classes. The analysis prioritized 

those classes for which shipments and 

the number of models available are 

high. The energy model used to support 

the analysis, which is described in the 

NOPR TSD, considers the refrigerating 

conditions used to produce ice and the 

capacity and power input of the 

equipment’s refrigerant compressors 

when operating at these conditions. 

3. Design Options 

After conducting the screening 

analysis and removing from 

consideration the technologies 

described above, DOE included the 

remaining technologies as design 

options in the NOPR engineering 

analysis. These technologies are listed 

in Table IV.19, with indication of the 

equipment classes to which they apply. 

a. Improved Condenser Performance in 

Batch Equipment 

During the preliminary analysis, DOE 

considered size increase for the 

condenser to reduce condensing 

temperature and compressor power 

input. DOE requested comment on use 

of this design option and on the 

difficulty of implementing it in ice 

makers with size constraints. 

AHRI commented that most 

condensers are already optimized and 

occasionally oversized; therefore, 

further increasing condenser area would 

not have any efficiency benefits and 

could instead necessitate increased 

cabinet size. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 2) 

Manitowoc commented that the 

outdoor condensers of RCUs can more 

easily accommodate size increases than 

the condensers incorporated into IMH 

equipment. However, Manitowoc also 

noted that increasing the size of the 

condenser coil in order to improve 

efficiency would necessitate an 

increased level of refrigerant. 

Manitowoc stated that this could require 

the installation of a larger receiver in the 

ice-making head, which may be difficult 

due to size constraints. (Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 

59) 

Manitowoc added that increasing the 

size of the condenser while maintaining 

a constant evaporator size can also 

interfere with the ability of the ice 

machine to properly make ice over the 

full range of ambient conditions. 

Manitowoc stated that DOE’s analysis is 

only concerned with performance at 

90 °F air/70 °F water testing conditions, 

but that real ice makers have to work in 

air temperatures ranging from 50 to 

110 °F and water temperatures from 40 

to 90 °F. As air temperature drops, 

Manitowoc stated, unless special 

refrigerant management devices are 

employed, a larger condenser will be 

forced to store more refrigerant at a 

lower temperature. This will prevent 

batch type ice machines from being able 

to harvest ice at low ambient 

temperatures, according to Manitowoc. 

(Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 2) Similarly, 

Scotsman commented that increasing 

the efficiency of the freeze cycle will 

lengthen the harvest process and 

minimize overall energy savings. 

(Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 59–60) Scotsman asserted 

that DOE’s analysis of condenser surface 

area must include this impact on the 

batch harvest cycle. (Scotsman, No. 46 

at p. 3) 

Hoshizaki commented that 

manufacturers would need more time to 

evaluate the implications of using larger 

water-cooled condensers on a closedloop system. Although larger 

condensers would increase the 

efficiency of heat transfer, Hoshizaki 

opined that this benefit must be 

compared with the increased final cost 

to the consumer as well as the potential 

need to increase cabinet size. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 2) 

In response to Manitowoc’s written 

comments, DOE has considered data 

obtained through testing of water-cooled 

units, as well as data provided by 

manufacturers on expected efficiency 

increases versus condenser growths. 

DOE notes that the key concerns 

expressed in Hoshizaki’s comment 

relate to the potential need to increase 

cabinet size and the concern about 

whether the larger condenser (and 

perhaps cabinet) is cost-justified. As 

discussed in section IV.C.d, DOE has 

considered a modest size increase for 

the ice-making head for some ice maker 

equipment classes. Answering the 

question of whether condenser size 

increase within these modest 

allowances for cabinet size increase is 

cost-effective is a key goal of the DOE 

analyses—the potential that the 

approach is not cost-effective is not a 

relevant argument for screening out this 

technology. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP17MR14.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14883 

In response to Scotsman and 

Manitowoc’s written comments, DOE 

conducted testing to assess the 

correlation of batch type ice maker 

efficiency level with condensing 

temperature and has used this 

information, which accounts for the 

increase in harvest energy use 

associated with lower condensing 

temperature, to adjust its analyses. DOE 

tested a water-cooled batch unit using 

different water-flow settings; the results 

are shown in Table IV.20. DOE notes 

that these test results indicate that there 

are energy benefits from increasing 

condenser area, even though harvest 

cycle energy use increases. The results 

show that the increase in harvest cycle 

energy use represents a loss of 15 

percent of the gain that would have 

been achieved if harvest energy use had 

not increased. DOE used these test 

results to adjust the modeled harvest 

energy when condenser improvement 

such as size increase was applied as a 

design option. These analyses are 

described in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE IV.20—CONDENSER WATER TEST RESULTS

Test attribute 

Test setting 1 

(factorysetting) Test setting 2 Test setting 3 

Condensing Temperature °F ....................................................................................................... 97 107 111 

Ice Harvest Rate lb ice/24 hours ................................................................................................. 375 361 355 

Energy Consumption kWh/100 lb ice .......................................................................................... 4.67 5.13 5.28 

Average Harvest Time (s) ........................................................................................................... 104 81 73 

Average Harvest Energy Wh ....................................................................................................... 21.2 17.9 17.0 

Average Harvest Energy per Ice kWh/100 lb .............................................................................. 0.53 0.44 0.42 

Percent of Savings Lost due to Harvest Energy Increase .......................................................... 15% 12% N/A 

DOE inspected baseline and highefficiency units, including condenser 

sizes typical of each. For equipment 

classes for which DOE inspected highefficiency units, DOE considered 

maximum condenser sizes consistent 

with the inspected units. For equipment 

classes where DOE did not have such 

information, DOE considered maximum 

condenser sizes consistent with the 

range of chassis sizes of commercially 

available equipment of the given class 

and harvest capacity. DOE notes that 

none of the evaluated IMH or SCU 

equipment has receivers, thus indicating 

that they would not be needed for the 

range of condenser sizes DOE 

considered in its analysis for these 

equipment classes. DOE also considered 

whether a larger remote condenser 

would require installation of a larger 

receiver, and talked with receiver 

manufacturers about receiver sizing. 

DOE did not seek to increase receiver 

sizes for any of the models analyzed. 

In response to comments by AHRI and 

Manitowoc, DOE studied the 

condensing temperatures of tested units 

to set limits for available efficiency 

improvement. DOE in its analyses 

considered only condenser changes that 

resulted in condensing temperatures 

within the range of those observed in 

the tested ice makers for comparable 

equipment classes (for instance DOE 

used different minimum condensing 

temperatures for air-cooled and watercooled equipment). These analyses are 

described in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

b. Harvest Capacity Oversizing 

NPCC noted that many ice makers 

may be oversized for their particular 

applications, suggesting that there 

would be little compromise of customer 

utility if the capacity available for a 

given ice maker chassis size decreased 

as a result of design changes that 

increased their efficiency. (NPCC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 

60–61) 

Manitowoc countered that its 

customers are very aware of how much 

ice they need and that they 

consequently size machines for peak 

demand days, rather than average use. 

Manitowoc added that it is very 

important that customers not shut down 

on days with high demand, such as the 

4th of July. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at p. 63) 

DOE did not investigate potential 

down-sizing of equipment, instead 

relying on information regarding 

commercially available units as the 

basis for consideration of what sizes are 

acceptable for given capacity levels. 

c. Open-Loop Condensing Water 

Designs 

Open-loop cooling systems use 

condenser cooling water only once 

before disposing of it, whereas closedloop (single-pass) systems repeatedly 

recirculate cooling water. In closed 

loops, the water is cooled in a cooling 

tower and recirculated to accept heat 

from the automatic commercial ice 

maker condenser again. Alternatively, 

the water passes through another heat 

exchanger where the heat is removed 

and used in another piece of equipment, 

such as a space or water heater, before 

cycling back to the ice maker condenser. 

Although some condenser water may 

still be lost to evaporation in cooling 

towers, closed-loop systems still have 

negligible condenser water disposal or 

consumption compared to open-loop 

systems. 

The Alliance expressed strong 

opposition to open-loop condenser 

water cooling for automatic commercial 

ice makers, arguing that such 

technology is obsolete and excessively 

wastes water and energy. The Alliance 

noted that more energy-efficient 

technologies such as air cooling, remote 

condensing, and closed-loop watercooling systems have made single-pass 

water cooling unnecessary. Therefore, 

the Alliance urged DOE to disallow all 

ice makers that can be installed and 

operated with a single-pass cooling 

system. (Alliance, No. 45 at pp. 3–4) 

DOE recognizes that open-loop watercooling systems use significantly more 

water than other condenser cooling 

technologies. However, DOE determined 

after the Framework public meeting that 

its rulemaking authority extends only to 

the manufacturing of equipment and not 

to the installation or usage of 

equipment. Thus, DOE has no authority 

to mandate that dual-use water-cooled 

machines (those that can be used in 

either closed-loop or open-loop 

configurations) be used with closedloop systems. Furthermore, DOE is not 

aware of any potential design 

requirements it could impose that 

would effectively prohibit open-loop 

cooling systems for water-cooled ice 

makers. Even if a design requirement 

could be effective in this regard, DOE 

can only adopt either a prescriptive 

design requirement or a performance 

standard for commercial equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(18)) The focus of this 

rulemaking is an equipment 

performance standard. Due to the nature 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14884 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

34The table in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) states 

maximum energy and condenser water usage limits 

for cube-type ice machines producing between 50 

and 2,500 lb of ice per 24 hour period (lb ice/24 

hours). A footnote to the table states explicitly the 

water limits are for water used in the condenser and 

not potable water used to make ice. 

of this rulemaking, DOE is not 

considering any prescriptive design 

requirements, and open-loop cooling 

systems therefore remain a viable option 

for manufacturers of water-cooled ice 

makers who want to reduce their water 

consumption. 

d. Condenser Water Flow 

EPACT 2005 prescribes maximum 

condenser water use levels for watercooled cube type automatic commercial 

ice makers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)) 34 For 

units not currently covered by the 

standard (continuous machines of all 

harvest rates and batch machines with 

harvest rates exceeding 2,500 lb ice/24 

hours), there currently are no limits on 

condenser water use. 

In this rulemaking, DOE considered 

using higher condenser water flow rates 

as a design option for water-cooled ice 

makers. 

In chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD, 

DOE indicated that the ice maker 

standards primarily focus on energy use, 

and that DOE is not bound by EPCA to 

comprehensively evaluate and propose 

reductions in the maximum condenser 

water consumption levels, and likewise 

has the option to allow increases in 

condenser water use, if this is a costeffective way to improve energy 

efficiency. 

DOE did not analyze potential 

changes in condenser water use 

standards during the preliminary 

analysis. However, it did propose an 

approach for balancing energy use and 

condenser water use in the engineering 

analysis in a way that maintains the 

rulemaking’s focus on energy use 

reduction while appropriately 

considering the cost implications of 

changing condenser water use. DOE 

proposed using appropriate 

representative values for water and 

energy costs, product lifetime, and 

discount rates to calculate a 

representative LCC for baseline and 

modified design configurations as part 

of the engineering analysis. In this way, 

the engineering analysis would develop 

a relationship between energy efficiency 

and manufacturing cost as is customary 

in engineering analyses (i.e., the costefficiency curves), but the ordering of 

different design configurations in this 

curve would be based on minimizing 

the representative LCC calculated for 

the candidate design configurations at 

each successive efficiency level. Using 

this proposed analytical approach, an 

energy-saving increase in condenser 

water use would be expected to be costeffective when the remaining design 

options, which do not change water use, 

have greater LCC increases than the 

option of increasing condenser water 

use. This approach would avoid the 

complexity of developing several cost 

curves representing multiple condenser 

water use levels and determining in the 

downstream analyses the efficiency 

levels at which increasing condenser 

water use would be appropriate. During 

the preliminary analysis, DOE requested 

comment on this approach for 

addressing condenser water use. 

AHRI commented that water-cooled 

ice makers are already efficient products 

and that reducing condenser water 

consumption could significantly 

increase their energy use. AHRI and 

Scotsman both cautioned that DOE must 

consider the impact that lower 

condensing temperatures could have on 

the harvest rate of batch type ice makers 

and ensure that product utility is not 

diminished by implementing new 

condenser water use standards. (AHRI, 

No. 49 at p. 4; Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at p. 70) 

In the public meeting discussions, 

Manitowoc suggested that DOE consider 

decreasing the allowable condenser 

water use, which could be a more 

economical approach if water costs 

increase. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 70–72) 

However, Manitowoc also noted in its 

written comments that condenser water 

use is carefully managed to ensure that 

ice makers can harvest ice under worstcase conditions and maintain water 

velocities within specified limits in 

order to avoid erosion. Manitowoc 

expressed doubt about the ability of 

DOE’s energy model to accurately 

predict the effects of these variables, 

and for this reason, Manitowoc strongly 

discouraged introducing condenser 

water use standards. (Manitowoc, No. 

54 at pp. 3–4) 

DOE stated that EPCA’s antibacksliding provision in section 

325(o)(1), which lists specific products 

for which DOE is forbidden from 

prescribing amended standards that 

increase the maximum allowable water 

use, does not include ice makers. 

However, Earthjustice asserted that DOE 

lacks the authority to relax condenser 

water limits for water-cooled ice 

makers. Earthjustice argued that the 

failure of section 325(o)(1) to 

specifically call out ice maker 

condenser water use as a metric that is 

subject to the statute’s prohibition 

against the relaxation of a standard is 

not determinative. On the contrary, 

Earthjustice maintained that the plain 

language of EPCA shows that Congress 

intended to apply the anti-backsliding 

provision to ice makers. Earthjustice 

commented that section 342(d)(4) 

requires DOE to adopt standards for icemakers ‘‘at the maximum level that is 

technically feasible and economically 

justified, as provided in [section 325(o) 

and (p)].’’ (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(4)) 

Earthjustice stated that, by referencing 

all of section 325(o), the statute pulls in 

each of the distinct provisions of that 

subsection, including, among other 

things, the anti-backsliding provision, 

the statutory factors governing economic 

justification, and the prohibition on 

adopting a standard that eliminates 

certain performance characteristics. By 

applying all of section 325(o) to icemakers, section 342(d)(4) had already 

made the anti-backsliding provision 

applicable to condenser water use, 

according to Earthjustice. Finally, 

Earthjustice stated that even if DOE 

concludes that the plain language of 

EPCA is not clear on this point, the only 

reasonable interpretation is that 

Congress did not intend to grant DOE 

the authority to relax the condenser 

water use standards for ice makers. 

Earthjustice added that the antibacksliding provision is one of EPCA’s 

most powerful tools to improve the 

energy and water efficiency of 

appliances and commercial equipment, 

and Congress would presumably speak 

clearly if it intended to withhold its 

application to a specific product. 

(Earthjustice, No. 47 at pp. 4–5) 

Scotsman commented that balancing 

condenser water use with energy use 

was a reasonable analytical approach. 

(Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 3) Scotsman 

added that including condenser water 

usage in the overall energy use of a 

machine would also impact continuous 

type ice machines by affecting ice 

hardness. (Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at p. 70) 

The Alliance argued that water use 

and energy use cannot be compared on 

a simple price basis because of key 

differences between the two resources. 

While energy comes from multiple 

sources and is a commodity whose 

prices fluctuate based on supply and 

demand, fresh water is in limited 

supply, the Alliance stated. Hence, 

water prices are heavily regulated and 

based on the cost of treatment and 

delivery, which is less directly affected 

by supply and demand, according to the 

Alliance. Therefore, the Alliance 

recommended that DOE consider the 

marginal costs of alternative water 

sources, such as desalination, in its 

analyses to properly account for all 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14885 

35Personal communication with Piyush Desai at 

Packless Industries on May 16, 2012. 

water costs as applied to water-cooled 

condensers. (Alliance, No. 45 at p. 4) 

In response to Earthjustice’s 

comment, DOE maintains its position 

from the preliminary analysis that the 

anti-backsliding provision of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)(4)) does not apply to 

condenser water use in batch-type 

automatic commercial ice makers. 

While EPCA’s anti-backsliding 

provision (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) applies to 

consumer products, 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(4) 

makes the backsliding provision 

applicable to automatic commercial ice 

makers. However, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 

6295(o)(1) anti-backsliding provisions 

apply to water in only a limited set of 

residential appliances and fixtures. 

Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6295(o)(1), ‘‘the 

Secretary may not prescribe any 

amended standard which increases the 

maximum allowable energy use, or, in 

the case of showerheads, faucets, water 

closets, or urinals, water use, or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency, of a covered product.’’ This 

provision links automatic commercial 

ice makers to the energy efficiency antibacksliding provision as a covered 

product, and does not include automatic 

commercial ice makers among the 

products covered by the water efficiency 

anti-backsliding provision. Thus, this 

section of EPCA prohibits DOE from 

amending any standard in such a way 

as to decrease minimum energy 

efficiency for any covered automatic 

commercial ice maker equipment class. 

It does not, however, prohibit an 

increase in water use in any products 

other than those enumerated in the 

statute, and nothing in 6313(d)(4) 

expands the specific list of equipment 

or appliances to which the water antibacksliding applies. Therefore, an 

increase in condenser water use would 

not be considered backsliding under the 

statute. Nevertheless, the proposals do 

not include increases in condenser 

water use. 

Noting that condenser water 

standards are already in place for batch 

type ice makers, DOE has decided to 

consider an increase in condenser water 

use as a design option to improve 

energy efficiency for all water-cooled ice 

makers. Acknowledging the concerns of 

stakeholders such as AHRI, Manitowoc, 

and Scotsman, DOE recognizes that 

such an approach must consider the 

cost-effectiveness of this design option 

based on the end-user’s water cost. DOE 

does not believe that the contemplated 

changes would diminish product utility, 

because an increase in the maximum 

allowed condenser water use would 

increase the flexibility of manufacturers 

to meet the condenser water use 

standard. Manufacturers would 

obviously not be required to increase 

condenser water use, especially if such 

a design decision would negatively 

impact the energy use or harvest rate of 

their ice makers. 

In response to Manitowoc’s 

observation that water velocities must 

be maintained within specified limits in 

order to avoid erosion, DOE conducted 

an analysis to determine whether 

current levels of water use in watercooled condensers are close to 

exceeding these limits. DOE has learned 

from manufacturers of water-cooled 

condensers that water flow rates 

generally should not exceed 3.5 gallons 

per minute per nominal ton of 

condenser cooling capacity (gpm per 

ton).35 DOE’s analysis of test data for 

batch machines shows that the 

maximum condenser water flow rate 

occurs shortly after harvest, and that 

there is some room for increase of 

condenser water flow rate with the 3.5 

gpm per ton limit. DOE considered 

some increase of condenser water flow 

for batch type units that did not already 

operate at this limit at the start of the 

freeze cycle. Unlike batch type ice 

makers, whose condenser loads spike 

shortly after the harvest cycle, 

continuous type ice makers typically 

operate in steady-state. DOE’s testing 

shows that flow rates in continuous type 

ice makers are therefore far from the 

maximum levels recommended to 

prevent erosion. However, DOE notes 

that it did not perform direct analysis on 

any water-cooled continuous equipment 

classes. 

As the manufacturers and AHRI point 

out, DOE must be careful in the analysis 

of condenser water to ensure that the 

complex relationship between 

condenser water and machine energy 

usage are modeled correctly. However, 

balancing energy use and condenser 

water use following the approach 

outlined above greatly simplifies an 

otherwise highly complex, threedimensional analysis of design options, 

condenser water use levels, and 

efficiency. This analysis approach 

helped DOE determine whether 

increasing condenser water limits could 

cost-effectively save electricity. 

DOE tested three water-cooled ice 

makers with varying condensing water 

flow to evaluate the potential for energy 

savings and the cost-effectiveness of 

using this approach. The results of this 

evaluation for a batch type ice maker are 

shown in Table IV.21. The analysis 

assumed that in the field half of the ice 

makers would be used in open systems 

and half in closed-loop systems, which 

significantly reduce water flow, as 

documented in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE IV.21—TEST DATA FOR A WATER-COOLED BATCH UNIT

Condensing Temperature, °F ...................................................................................................... 97 107 111 

Harvest Capacity, lb/24 hr ........................................................................................................... 375 361 355 

Energy Consumption, kWh/100 lb ............................................................................................... 4.67 5.13 5.28 

LCC Operating Cost, $/100 lb ..................................................................................................... $1.75 $1.38 $1.32 

Condenser Water Use, gal/100 lb ............................................................................................... 165.4 106.5 94.1 

The analysis shows that increasing 

condenser water flow is not a costeffective way to reduce energy use. This 

was demonstrated also for the two 

continuous type ice makers that were 

tested. As a result, DOE did not 

comprehensively evaluate this approach 

for all water-cooled equipment classes 

in its engineering analysis. Additional 

details are available in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

e. Compressors 

Scotsman commented that the highEER compressors in DOE’s analysis may 

not be feasible for ice makers, 

particularly batch type ice makers, in 

which liquid refrigerant can often enter 

the compressor during the harvest 

process. Scotsman noted that the design 

changes used by compressor 

manufacturers to improve EER can 

reduce reliability, for instance placing 

the compressor suction line closer to the 

suction intake within the shell, which 

can cause liquid refrigerant to impinge 

on the suction valve during harvest and 

rapidly lead to compressor failure. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14886 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 5) Manitowoc 

echoed Scotsman’s second point, 

indicating that a direct suction 

compressor would allow liquid to enter 

the compressor cylinder and damage the 

valve system. (Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 

2) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

consulted with manufacturers regarding 

which compressors are appropriate for 

ice makers. DOE removed from its 

analysis those compressors that 

manufacturers have indicated are 

unsuitable for use in ice makers. As part 

of the NOPR analyses, DOE also 

considered additional compressors of 

compressor lines that manufacturers 

indicated are acceptable. The impact of 

these changes in the analysis on the 

predicted potential efficiency 

improvement associated with use of 

higher efficiency compressors varied by 

equipment class. Additional details are 

available in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. 

f. Limitations on Available Design 

Options 

Manitowoc commented that the small 

size of the ice maker industry makes it 

difficult for ice maker manufacturers to 

implement new technologies or 

influence the component (e.g., 

compressor or motor) suppliers that 

they depend on for efficiency gains. 

Manitowoc noted that, compared to 

other appliance industries, ice maker 

sales volumes do not drive component 

suppliers to make design changes, so ice 

maker manufacturers are limited to 

those changes that suppliers will 

implement for larger customers. 

Furthermore, Manitowoc noted that, 

rather than being independent 

appliances, ice makers are typically part 

of a larger equipment chain for 

delivering food service products, which 

places them under physical constraints 

and causes their technology changes to 

have broader impacts on the entire food 

delivery industry. (Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 14–15) 

For the NOPR analyses, DOE has used 

design options that are commercially 

available. Many of these technologies 

are found in ice makers that were 

inspected, and a few are available from 

component manufacturers. DOE has 

taken care to ensure that those design 

options identified do apply to these 

products. 

• For example, DOE has removed 

from its analysis any compressors that 

may potentially interfere with ice maker 

operation (based on their design). 

• DOE has also included an option to 

increase chassis sizes (in order to grow 

internal components such as heat 

exchangers), but limited chassis growth 

design options to only cover the modest 

levels suggested by the available 

equipment offerings 

Further information on DOE’s 

analyses is contained in sections 

IV.D.4.e and IV.D.4.f. 

4. Development of the Cost-Efficiency 

Relationship 

In this rulemaking, DOE has adopted 

a combined efficiency level/design 

option/reverse engineering approach to 

developing cost-efficiency curves. To 

support this effort, DOE developed 

manufacturing cost models based 

heavily on reverse engineering of 

products to develop a baseline MPC. 

DOE estimated the energy use of 

different design configurations using an 

energy model whose input data was 

based on reverse engineering, automatic 

commercial ice maker performance 

ratings, and test data. DOE combined 

the manufacturing cost and energy 

modeling to develop cost-efficiency 

curves for automatic commercial ice 

maker equipment based on baselineefficiency equipment selected to 

represent their equipment classes. Next, 

DOE derived manufacturer markups 

using publicly available automatic 

commercial ice maker industry financial 

data, in conjunction with manufacturer 

feedback. The markups were used to 

convert the MPC-based cost-efficiency 

curves into MSP-based curves. Details of 

these analyses developed for the 

preliminary analysis were presented in 

the preliminary analysis TSD and in a 

supplementary data publication posted 

on the rulemaking Web site. 

Stakeholder comments regarding 

DOE’s preliminary engineering analyses 

addressed the following broad areas: 

1. Estimated costs in many cases were 

lower than manufacturers’ actual costs. 

2. Estimated efficiency benefits of 

many modeled design options were 

greater than the actual benefits, 

according to manufacturers’ experience 

with equipment development. 

3. DOE should validate its energy use 

model based on comparison with actual 

equipment test data. 

4. DOE should validate its costefficiency analysis by investigating the 

relationship of efficiency with retail 

prices for ice makers. 

5. The incremental costs in the 

engineering analysis should take into 

consideration the design, development, 

and testing costs associated with new 

designs. 

These topics are addressed in greater 

detail in the sections below. 

a. Manufacturing Cost 

Manitowoc requested that DOE 

provide more information on the inputs 

and methodology behind calculating the 

MPCs for each efficiency level. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 76–77) Manitowoc, 

Scotsman, and AHRI all asserted that it 

is important for DOE to accurately 

assess the potential incremental costs 

associated with each efficiency level, 

since they will drive the decisions in 

this rulemaking. (Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 170– 

171 and No. 54 at p. 1; Scotsman, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 173; 

AHRI, No. 49 at p. 6) 

Regarding the accuracy of DOE’s cost 

model, Manitowoc commented that 

some of the incremental costs between 

efficiency levels were incorrect. 

Manitowoc added that, while it could 

not provide its bill of materials, it would 

be willing to give DOE guidance 

regarding the actual costs of 

implementing technology design 

changes at realistic volumes. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 80–81) Scotsman agreed 

with Manitowoc that the table of 

incremental costs was optimistic at best 

and added that changing one 

component in an ice maker will often 

require also changing other components, 

further affecting incremental costs. 

(Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 85) 

Specifically, Manitowoc, Scotsman, 

and AHRI each stated the belief that 

DOE has underestimated the 

incremental costs of its proposed design 

options. (Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 1; 

Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 5; AHRI, No. 49 

at p. 6) For example, DOE estimated that 

the incremental cost of using an 

electronically commutated motor (ECM) 

in place of a shaded pole motor would 

be $13, whereas Scotsman’s supplier 

quoted an incremental cost of $35 for 

this same design option. Scotsman 

added that, because the ice maker 

industry is relatively low-volume, ice 

maker manufacturers face large cost 

premiums for component technologies. 

(Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 5) AHRI noted 

that DOE assumed that an 8 percent 

increase in compressor efficiency would 

cost only $9. However, AHRI asserted 

that most compressors currently used in 

ice makers are already mechanically 

optimized and could therefore achieve 

greater efficiency only by switching to 

permanent magnet motors, which would 

cost seven times more than DOE’s 

incremental cost estimate. AHRI 

cautioned that DOE should not assume 

that information it derived for other 

rulemakings is automatically applicable 

to ice makers. AHRI also opined that 

DOE drastically underestimated the cost 

of increasing condenser surface area. 

(AHRI, No. 49 at p. 2) Finally, 

Manitowoc commented that DOE’s cost 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14887 

estimates for ECM versions of the fan 

motors and pumps were unrealistically 

low. (Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 2) 

In response to Manitowoc’s first 

comment, DOE has provided additional 

information correlating efficiency levels 

and design options in this NOPR and its 

accompanying TSD. The TSD details the 

design option changes and associated 

costs, calculated for each efficiency 

level for the equipment analyzed. 

In response to the comments by 

Manitowoc, Scotsman, and AHRI, DOE 

had received very limited feedback from 

manufacturers regarding cost estimates 

to support its preliminary engineering 

analysis. During the NOPR phase of this 

rulemaking, DOE emphasized the need 

to obtain relevant information from 

stakeholders by extending the comment 

period by 40 days and welcoming 

comment on specific details presented 

in the TSD regarding technology options 

and costs. Moreover, DOE’s contractor 

again worked directly with 

manufacturers under non-disclosure 

agreements in order to obtain additional 

cost information. 

DOE has significantly revised its 

component cost estimates for the 

engineering analysis for the NOPR 

phase based on the additional 

information obtained, both in 

discussions with manufacturers and in 

stakeholder comments. DOE used the 

detailed feedback that it solicited from 

manufacturers to update its cost 

estimates for all ice maker components, 

significantly increasing its estimates of 

nearly all of these costs. Additional 

details on the adjusted component costs 

are available in chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

b. Energy Consumption Model 

The energy consumption model 

calculates the energy consumption of 

automatic commercial ice makers in 

kilowatt-hours per 100 lb of ice based 

on detailed description of equipment 

design. The DOE analysis for a given 

equipment class and capacity applied 

the model for a variety of design 

configurations representing different 

performance levels. The analysis starts 

with a baseline design, subsequently 

assessing the differing energy 

consumption for incrementally moreefficient equipment designs that utilize 

increasing numbers of design options. 

The results of the energy consumption 

model are paired with the cost model 

results to produce the points on the 

cost-efficiency curves, which 

correspond to specific equipment 

configurations. After the publication of 

the preliminary analysis, DOE received 

numerous stakeholder comments 

regarding the methodology and results 

of the energy consumption model. 

Manitowoc and Howe both 

commented that DOE’s models 

significantly overstated the efficiency 

gains associated with many of the 

design options. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 3; 

Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 2) As an 

example, Howe pointed out that using a 

more efficient fan may not have a 

significant impact on the overall 

efficiency of the ice maker, since the fan 

represents a small fraction of its overall 

energy use. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 3) 

Manitowoc added that its own tests on 

actual ice machines under controlled 

conditions resulted in lower 

performance gains than those predicted 

by the DOE models. (Manitowoc, No. 54 

at p. 2) 

Manitowoc commented that it would 

like to have more information on the 

models used in DOE’s engineering 

analysis. In particular, Manitowoc 

stated that it would like to learn more 

about the FREEZE model, since it is 

difficult to model the process of freezing 

water into ice and even more difficult to 

model ice harvesting. Manitowoc noted 

that this model will drive DOE’s 

estimation of energy efficiency and that 

it is important for manufacturers to 

understand the impacts of the model 

before new standards take effect, 

especially if new efficiency levels take 

manufacturers to technology levels far 

beyond their level of experience. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 171–173) 

Manitowoc also commented that the 

FREEZE model is limited by its inability 

to model the harvest portion of the 

batch cycle. Manitowoc stated that, 

although the harvest portion is shorter 

in duration than the freeze portion, it 

represents a significant fraction of 

energy consumption due to the higher 

energy input to the compressor and the 

additional energy required to cool the 

evaporator after each harvest. 

Manitowoc added that many changes 

that improve the freeze operation 

efficiency, such as increasing condenser 

area, also reduce harvest operation 

efficiency. Manitowoc expounded on 

this example by noting that the 

increased condenser surface area 

reduces the design temperature of the 

refrigerant, which results in lower 

energy available during the harvest 

cycle, which in turn results in slower 

harvest times and an overall increase in 

energy during the harvest cycle. 

Manitowoc commented that DOE’s 

FREEZE model is unable to account for 

such behavior. (Manitowoc, No. 54 at 

pp. 1–2) 

Scotsman and Hoshizaki both 

commented that the energy model will 

be incomplete until it has been 

validated with real test results of 

different technology design options. 

(Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at pp. 173–174) Hoshizaki 

asserted that DOE should not use the 

FREEZE model in the analyses until it 

has been validated. (Hoshizaki, No. 53 

at p. 1) 

Scotsman inquired whether DOE 

intends to validate its cost-efficiency 

model by implementing these design 

changes on actual machines and 

evaluating their subsequent energy 

performance. (Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 85–86) 

In response to comments by 

Manitowoc, Howe, and Scotsman, DOE 

has made changes to the energy 

modeling based on feedback received 

from the manufacturers under nondisclosure agreements. To address 

concerns by Manitowoc that the 

FREEZE model did not adequately 

model the effects of increased condenser 

size on the harvesting energy, DOE also 

performed testing of a water-cooled 

condenser batch unit, and used the test 

data to develop a relationship between 

condensing temperatures and harvest 

energy. DOE did note that lower 

condensing temperatures did result in 

lower overall energy consumption, but 

higher harvest energy consumption. 

TABLE IV.22—TEST DATA FOR A WATER-COOLED BATCH UNIT

Test level Units 1 2 3 

Condenser Temperature ............................................................................... °F ...................... 97.36 107.47 111.36 

Ice Harvest .................................................................................................... lb/24 hr ............. 375 361 355 

Overall Energy Consumption ........................................................................ kWh/100 lb ....... 4.67 5.13 5.28 

Average Harvest Energy Consumption ........................................................ Wh .................... 21.21 17.86 17.03 

LCC Operating Cost ..................................................................................... $/100 lb ............ $1.75 $1.38 $1.32 

Condenser Water Use .................................................................................. gal/100 lb .......... 165.4 106.5 94.1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14888 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Further information on DOE’s 

engineering analysis and energy model 

adjustments is contained in sections 

IV.D.4.e and IV.D.4.f. 

c. Retail Cost Review 

AHRI and Hoshizaki both questioned 

the accuracy of DOE’s incremental costefficiency analysis. AHRI and Hoshizaki 

recommended that DOE validate it by 

comparing its results with actual retail 

prices. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 78–80, 82–83, 

174–175, and No. 49 at p. 6; Hoshizaki, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 

84 and No. 53 at p. 1). 

In response to AHRI’s and Hoshizaki’s 

request for cost validation, DOE 

prepared a price analysis for automatic 

commercial ice makers to evaluate the 

correlation of price with higher ice 

maker efficiency. DOE collected list 

price information from publicly 

available automatic commercial ice 

maker manufacturer price sheets for 470 

ice makers. DOE collected other 

information relevant to the analysis 

appropriate sources, including 

equipment dimensions, harvest 

capacity, ENERGY STAR qualification, 

and energy use. For equipment classes 

for which there were data available for 

more than 20 ice makers, price and ice 

harvest rate were shown to have a strong 

linear correlation, with R-squared 

values ranging from 0.63 to 0.84. This 

result indicates that customers pay more 

for higher-capacity ice makers. 

While an initial evaluation of price 

trends with efficiency suggested that 

prices are higher for higher efficiency 

ice makers, subsequent analysis suggests 

that this trend can be attributed to the 

trend for reduction in energy use for 

higher harvest capacity and the 

aforementioned relationship between 

price and harvest capacity. For the 

equipment classes for which there were 

sufficient ice makers to analyze, DOE 

determined the best-fit linear 

relationship predicting price as a 

function of ice harvest rate. DOE then 

evaluated the relationship between each 

ice maker’s price differential (i.e., the 

difference between its price and the 

best-fit linear function), expressed as a 

percentage of the predicted price, with 

the ice maker’s energy consumption rate 

(in kWh/100 lb ice), developing best-fit 

linear relationships for these trends. 

DOE noted that the linear relationships 

showed either no growth or very small 

growth in price as energy consumption 

increased. These results indicate that 

there is no correlation between higher 

efficiency and higher retail prices for ice 

machines. However, DOE did not 

conclude, based on this analysis, that 

there would be no costs associated with 

improving equipment efficiency— 

rather, it concluded that retail prices are 

not a reliable indicator of these costs. 

Additional information on this analysis 

can be found in chapter 3 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

d. Design, Development, and Testing 

Costs 

Hoshizaki commented that DOE’s 

incremental cost-efficiency analysis 

must include all aspects of design 

changes, including the additional design 

time, testing, and increased labor, when 

calculating incremental costs. Hoshizaki 

added that manufacturers could help 

DOE by reviewing the actual costs 

associated with redesigning their 

machines to meet the 2010 DOE energy 

standards as well as ENERGY STAR 

standards. Hoshizaki expressed its 

willingness to collaborate with DOE and 

AHRI. (Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 3) 

DOE incorporates the cost of 

additional design time, testing, labor, 

and tooling into its manufacturer 

impacts analysis, as described in section 

IV.J. During the NOPR analyses, DOE 

and its contractors contacted 

manufacturers and obtained related 

costs under non-disclosure agreements. 

More information on these analyses is 

available in section IV.J. 

e. Empirical-Based Analysis 

In response to comments from 

Scotsman and Hoshizaki about the 

validity of the energy model, DOE 

investigated using an empirical 

efficiency level approach for the 

engineering analysis rather than the 

approach combining energy modeling 

and manufacturing cost modeling that 

was used in the preliminary analysis. 

DOE performed this analysis for eight 

batch equipment classes and three 

continuous equipment classes. The 

alternative approach was to develop the 

cost-efficiency curves based on rated or 

tested automatic commercial ice makers 

energy use levels and costs estimated 

using the manufacturing cost model 

with updates from manufacturer 

discussions, as described in section 

IV.D.4.a. To support the empirical 

analysis, DOE purchased and tested 20 

additional ice makers, giving DOE a 

total of 39 ice makers for evaluation. 

Table IV.23 shows the resulting costs 

for equipment classes that were 

analyzed using the empirical approach 

and the energy modeling approach. The 

incremental cost of reaching a 15 

percent below baseline efficiency level 

is listed below. In 7 out of 9 equipment 

classes, the energy modeling approach 

result was far more conservative (i.e., 

resulted in higher incremental cost 

estimates) than the empirical approach 

result; DOE estimated a negative costefficiency relationship in five of these 

cases for the empirical approach. 

TABLE IV.23—COMPARISON OF NOPR AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS APPROACHES AT THE 15% EFFICIENCY LEVEL

15% EL 

Incremental cost 

from empirical 

approach 

15% E 

ncremental cost 

from NOPR 

(energy modeling) 

IMH–A–Small–B ........................................................................................................................................... $4.88 $45.00 

IMH–A–Large–B .......................................................................................................................................... (32.32) 39.00 

IMH–W–Small–B .......................................................................................................................................... (102.62) 37.00 

IMH–W–Medium–B ...................................................................................................................................... (543.66) 53.00 

RCU–NRC–Small–B .................................................................................................................................... 4.70 * NA 

RCU–NRC–Large–B .................................................................................................................................... 166.03 198.00 

SCU–A–Large–B ......................................................................................................................................... (106.45) 40.00 

SCU–A–Small–B .......................................................................................................................................... 47.41 32.00 

IMH–A–C ..................................................................................................................................................... 74.60 46.00 

RCU–NRC–C ............................................................................................................................................... (354.91) * NA 

SCU–A–C .................................................................................................................................................... (244.80) 28.00 

* The NOPR analysis did not directly analyze this equipment class. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14889 

DOE compared the results of the 

empirical analysis and the results of the 

energy modeling, and concluded that 

the energy modeling results provided a 

better and more consistent forecast in 

the ability of manufacturers to reach 

certain efficiency levels. While the 

analyses rigorously account for the cost 

differences in key components that 

affect energy use, the costs to achieve 

higher efficiency levels range from 

higher than the NOPR estimates to very 

low to negative. DOE is concerned that, 

while the calculated cost differences 

may accurately reflect actual cost 

differences between the chosen pairs of 

models, the results may be very 

dependent on the details associated 

with the specific model selections, and 

may vary depending on the units that 

are selected. DOE’s empirical analysis 

does indicate that the energy modeling 

approach does not underestimate the 

cost-efficiency steps required to reach 

higher efficiencies. DOE believes that 

careful calibration of the energy model 

combined with reassessment of the cost 

model can result in accurate costefficiency curves. 

Thus, DOE decided to proceed with 

the energy modeling approach as the 

main basis for the engineering analysis. 

DOE has addressed many of the 

stakeholder comments as it updated the 

energy modeling analysis. The details of 

the energy modeling approach are 

described in the next section, section 

IV.D.4.f. 

Additional details and results of the 

empirical analysis are available in 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE 

believes that the results of the empirical 

analyses support the results of DOE’s 

design option analysis. 

f. Revision of Preliminary Engineering 

Analysis 

After investigation of and rejection of 

an empirical efficiency level analysis 

approach, DOE instead developed the 

NOPR engineering analysis by updating 

the preliminary engineering analysis. 

This included making adjustments to 

the manufacturing cost model as 

described in section IV.D.4.a. It also 

included adjustments to energy 

modeling. 

The design options considered in the 

analysis changed, as the discussion of 

the updated screening analysis details 

in section IV.C. 

DOE also made several changes to the 

FREEZE energy model used to estimate 

energy use of different ice maker design 

configurations. To address the concerns 

raised by Manitowoc and Howe, DOE 

adjusted its energy models based on 

input received in manufacturers’ public 

and confidential comments and 

discussions DOE’s contractor conducted 

under non-disclosure agreements. These 

changes included: 

• Adjustment of the compressor 

coefficients for batch type ice makers; 

• using data from tests of ice makers 

to model the increase of harvest energy 

as condensing temperature decreases for 

batch type ice makers; 

• developing an approach based on 

test data to determine the condensing 

temperature reductions associated with 

use of larger water-cooled condensers; 

• limiting adjustments to the potable 

water use of batch products to a 

minimum of 20 gallons per 100 lb (or 

the starting potable water use level, if 

lower) 

• incorporating energy use reduction 

for drain water heat exchangers used in 

batch equipment. 

Finally, for the max-tech design 

options that extended beyond what was 

typically found in commercially 

available products (such as permanent 

magnet motors and drain water heat 

exchangers) that could not be calibrated 

against existing units, DOE relied on 

testing and literature to properly 

account for the energy savings of these 

units. 

For drain water heat exchangers, DOE 

performed testing of a batch type ice 

maker with a commercially available 

drain water heat exchanger, and used 

the test results to calibrate the energy 

savings obtained from this technology 

for each equipment class where it was 

applied. 

DOE used motor efficiency ratings 

discussed in the preliminary analysis 

and verified with stakeholders to scale 

the motor use of each component using 

permanent magnet motors. During the 

NOPR analyses, DOE’s energy model 

was calibrated to properly account for 

the energy consumption of each 

component, and for energy reductions 

resulting in jumps to PSC technologies. 

Increases in the efficiency of the motor 

components can then be expressed as 

reductions in the energy consumption of 

these components. 

DOE calibrated the efficiency gains 

calculated by the energy model against 

the design options and test results 

gathered during the empirical analysis 

investigation. DOE used this 

comparison to determine the suite of 

design options that should be found at 

the appropriate high-efficiency level, 

and calibrated the results of the energy 

against the inspected results. 

For example, DOE inspected a pair of 

IMH–A–Small–B automatic commercial 

ice makers with measured efficiency 

levels of 2.2 percent below baseline and 

17.5 percent below baseline, and noted 

the following changes between units: 

• Increases in both the evaporator 

face area and condenser volume, and an 

increase in the chassis size to 

accommodate these growths, 

• an increase in condenser fan size 

and a change from an SPM motor to a 

PSC motor, and 

• an increase in compressor EER. 

In the energy model, DOE separated 

out each of the different design options 

and considered separately, ordering 

them in order of cost-efficiency. For this 

equipment class, DOE had the following 

design options to increase efficiency 

from baseline to 23.5 percent below 

baseline, as shown in Table IV.24. 

TABLE IV.24—IMH–A–SMALL–B 

DESIGN OPTIONS

% Below 

baseline Design option 

0.00 ............. Baseline. 

6.22 ............. Increase compressor EER 

from 4.86 EER to 5.25 EER. 

7.71 ............. Increase condenser width (no 

chassis size increase). 

20.52 ........... Increase Evaporator Area 

(with chassis size increase). 

23.51 ........... Switch to PSC Condenser Fan 

Motor. 

In some instances, DOE considered 

slightly different design options, 

especially when DOE’s analysis found 

that more efficient compressor options 

were available. For example, the 

maximum compressor EER used in the 

energy modeling analysis was more 

efficient than the inspected unit 

compressor EER. This is the reason this 

suite of design options reaches higher 

efficiencies. DOE did not consider 

chassis sizes larger than those available 

on the market. 

DOE believes that these changes help 

ensure that the energy model results 

accurately reflect technology behavior 

in the market. Further details on the 

analyses are available in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

E. Markups Analysis 

DOE applies multipliers called 

‘‘markups’’ to the MSP to calculate the 

customer purchase price of the analyzed 

equipment. These markups are in 

addition to the manufacturer markup 

(discussed in section IV.D.4) and are 

intended to reflect the cost and profit 

margins associated with the distribution 

and sales of the equipment between the 

manufacturer and customer. DOE 

identified three major distribution 

channels for automatic commercial ice 

makers, and markup values were 

calculated for each distribution channel 

based on industry financial data. Table 

IV.25 shows the three distribution 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14890 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

channels and the percentage of the 

shipments each is assumed to reflect. 

The overall markup values were then 

calculated by weighted-averaging the 

individual markups with market share 

values of the distribution channels. See 

chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD for more 

details on DOE’s methodology for 

markups analysis. 

TABLE IV.25—DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKET SHARES

Analysis phase 

National 

account 

channel: 

Manufacturer 

direct to 

customer 

(1-party) 

(%) 

Wholesaler 

channel: 

Manufacturer 

to distributor 

to customer 

(2-party) 

(%) 

Contractor 

channel: 

Contractor 

purchase from 

distributor for 

installation 

(3-party) 

(%) 

Preliminary Analysis .................................................................................................................... 6 32 62 

NOPR ........................................................................................................................................... 0 38 62 

In general, DOE has found that 

markup values vary over a wide range 

based on general economic outlook, 

manufacturer brand value, inventory 

levels, manufacturer rebates to 

distributors based on sales volume, 

newer versions of the same equipment 

model introduced into the market by the 

manufacturers, and availability of 

cheaper or more technologically 

advanced alternatives. Based on market 

data, DOE divided distributor costs into 

(1) direct cost of equipment sales; (2) 

labor expenses; (3) occupancy expenses; 

(4) other operating expenses (such as 

depreciation, advertising, and 

insurance); and (5) profit. DOE assumed 

that, for higher efficiency equipment 

only, the ‘‘other operating costs’’ and 

‘‘profit’’ scale with MSP, while the 

remaining costs stay constant 

irrespective of equipment efficiency 

level. Thus, DOE applied a baseline 

markup through which all estimated 

distribution costs are collected as part of 

the total baseline equipment cost, and 

the baseline markups were applied as 

multipliers only to the baseline MSP. 

Incremental markups were applied as 

multipliers only to the MSP increments 

(of higher efficiency equipment 

compared to baseline) and not to the 

entire MSP. Taken together the two 

markups are consistent with economic 

behavior in a competitive market—the 

participants are only able to recover 

costs and a reasonable profit level. 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding markups after the publication 

of the preliminary analysis. 

AHRI stated that equipment markups 

often result in retail prices that are 

lower than what is observed in the 

market place, and stated that DOE 

should supplement its analysis with a 

survey or retail sale prices. (AHRI, No. 

49 at pp. 4–5) Scotsman suggested 

reviewing equipment pricing on the 

internet because many ice makers are 

available online. (Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 

5) 

Scotsman stated that the national 

account chain is not accurate. Scotsman 

commented that the national account 

distribution chain resembles the 

wholesaler distribution chain, because 

an equipment supplier is part of the 

process. The supplier may contract 

directly with the customer but 

equipment still goes through another 

party, according to Scotsman. 

(Scotsman, No. 42 at p. 97) Manitowoc 

agreed with Scotsman that the national 

accounts chain is misrepresented, and 

actually includes a third party to do 

installation, repair, and maintenance. 

(Manitowoc, No. 42 at pp. 99–100) 

Manitowoc stated that mechanical 

contractors are typically not part of the 

distribution chain. Manitowoc indicated 

dealers may in fact provide those 

services, but the model is a little 

different from the model presented. 

(Manitowoc, No. 42 at p. 102–3) 

Hoshizaki agreed with the analysis of 

distribution channels. (Hoshizaki, No. 

53 at p. 2) Manitowoc suggested another 

distribution channel exists: rather than 

a sale to an end-user, the dealer leases 

it to the customer. (Manitowoc, No. 42 

at p. 98) Manitowoc was of the opinion 

that whether the equipment was sold or 

leased to the customer, the end result 

would be that the ultimate equipment 

price would not be affected. 

(Manitowoc, No. 42 at p. 99) 

Manitowoc questioned the basic 

methodology of using a base and 

incremental markup. Manitowoc stated 

that if it changed a product, it would 

expect the same gross margin on the 

incremental cost as on the base. 

(Manitowoc, No. 42 at p. 104) 

Manitowoc stated that entities in the 

distribution chain take the 

manufacturer’s list price and add a 

markup. Manitowoc stated that by using 

the incremental markup, DOE is 

understating the impact in the market 

place of adding additional costs to raise 

the efficiency level, and that is not what 

happens in the market, according to 

Manitowoc. (Manitowoc, No. 42 at p. 

105) Manitowoc stated that the 

incremental markup should be the same 

as the baseline markup and that it 

would be unreasonable to expect that 

vendors would earn a lower margin on 

additional costs associated with 

complying by the increased minimum 

efficiency regulations. (Manitowoc, No. 

54 at p. 3) 

With regard to the AHRI, Scotsman, 

and Manitowoc comments related to 

retail prices surveys or studies to 

determine if DOE was underestimating 

prices, DOE performed a market price 

survey, reported earlier in the 

engineering section IV.D.4.c. Previously 

DOE has not performed retail price 

surveys, believing that scatter in the 

data—particularly when internet and 

non-internet prices are co-mingled— 

would cause surveys to provide data of 

poor value or usefulness. The results of 

the retail price survey performed for the 

engineering analysis supports this 

belief. 

With regard to the comment that 

mechanical contractors are typically not 

part of the distribution chain, DOE is 

using mechanical contractor cost 

information to model a three-party 

distribution channel. Available Census 

Bureau data as well as comments 

received at the Framework public 

meeting indicates that a three-party 

distribution channel is common. At 

present the mechanical contractor cost 

data is the best information available for 

quantifying the local contractor portion 

of the three-party channel, and DOE 

used this data for developing costs 

contained in this notice. DOE requests 

specific data or data sources to better 

categorize the third party costs 

attributable to local dealers or 

contractors. 

The Scotsman and Manitowoc 

comments about the national account 

chain being misrepresented indicate 

that the national account channel is 

basically the same as the wholesaler 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14891 

channel. Thus, the 6 percent of 

shipments initially assigned to the 

national account channel will be 

combined with the wholesaler channel 

shipments and assessed the wholesaler 

channel markup. With regard to adding 

another channel for leased equipment, 

since Manitowoc suggested the pricing 

of equipment in such a hypothetical 

channel would not differ from other 

equipment, DOE elects to not add an 

additional channel. 

With respect to the comments 

questioning the use of an incremental 

markup, DOE believes that there is 

likely an inaccurate comparison taking 

place. In competitive markets, such as 

the automatic commercial ice maker 

market, the participants are expected to 

be able to recover costs and a reasonable 

profit, which is what the markups 

designed and used by participants 

would be expected to do. In the DOE 

analysis, the baseline markup has been 

calculated to recover all currently 

existing overhead expenses with 

baseline equipment costs. DOE’s 

analysis focuses on changes. Profit 

margin and other costs that change as 

MSP changes were assigned to 

incremental markups. Most overhead 

costs were allocated to the base markup 

because DOE does not expect these costs 

to change because of MSP changes 

brought on by efficiency standards. DOE 

developed the baseline and incremental 

markup methodology to ensure all 

overhead costs are fully collected and a 

reasonable profit margin is received and 

to identify costs that change, and apply 

such to the incremental MSP in the form 

of incremental markups. 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

For the preliminary analysis and for 

the NOPR, DOE estimated energy usage 

for use in the LCC and NIA models 

based on the kWh/100 lb ice and gal/

100 lb ice values developed in the 

engineering analysis in combination 

with other assumptions. In the 

preliminary analysis, DOE assumed that 

ice makers on average are used to 

produce one-half of the ice the 

machines could produce (i.e., a 50 

percent capacity factor). DOE also 

assumed that when not making ice, on 

average ice makers would draw 5 watts 

of power. DOE modeled condenser 

water usage as ‘‘open-loop’’ 

installations, or installations where 

water is used in the condenser one time 

(single pass) and released into the 

wastewater system. 

Several stakeholders agreed with the 

50 percent capacity factor being 

reasonable. Scotsman stated that the 50 

percent utilization factor is relatively 

close, given the wide spectrum that 

exists based on seasonality and 

installation location. (Scotsman, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 108) 

AHRI stated that on average, across all 

applications and seasons, the 50 percent 

utilization factor assumed by DOE is 

appropriate. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 5) 

Manitowoc agreed that 50 percent 

utilization is a good number to use. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 110) Hoshizaki, on the other 

hand, thought 50 percent was on the 

low side for the industry, and some 

business types, like 24-hour restaurants, 

might have much higher usage factors. 

(Hoshizaki, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 111) NPCC expressed a 

desire to have information made 

available to determine if there is an 

equipment class relationship between 

the duty cycles and the business type, 

and whether duty cycle is related to the 

equipment class and/or the product 

capacity. NPCC believed that this may 

determine whether one is more costeffective to pursue than another. (NPCC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 

111) 

For the NOPR, DOE has continued to 

utilize a 50 percent capacity factor, as 

most commenters believed it to be a 

reasonable number and DOE did not 

receive utilization data in the comments 

that would lead it to consider 

alternative capacity factors in the 

analysis. In response to the Hoshizaki 

comment and in agreement with the 

NPCC comment, DOE requests 

additional information about reasonable 

values that could be used to vary the 

assumption by business type. 

Several stakeholders commented on 

the assumption of an open-loop 

installation for water-cooled 

condensers. Scotsman commented that 

the majority of ice makers are installed 

in open-loop configurations. Scotsman 

stated that in some business types like 

hotels or casinos, there will typically be 

cooling towers and recirculation 

systems that the ice maker can tap into. 

In smaller locations without that type of 

a resource, it would typically be open 

loop, according to Scotsman. (Scotsman, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 

108–109) Scotsman added that singlepass configuration provides a worst-case 

energy use, and is appropriate for this 

analysis. (Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 3) 

Manitowoc stated that it only knows of 

installations in casinos or other large 

projects where ice makers are installed 

on closed loops, and suspects that most 

historical installations are open loop. 

(Manitowoc, No. 42 at p. 110) 

NEEA recommended that DOE 

investigate the market share of 

automatic commercial ice makers with 

single-pass condensers, because they 

use substantially more water than those 

with other condenser configurations. 

(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No, 

42 at pp. 165–166) NPCC stated that 

some jurisdictions do not permit openloop installations because of water 

usage. (NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 109–110) 

Hoshizaki suggested placing watercooled units in closed-loop systems. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 42 at p. 110) Hoshizaki 

stated that, in certain areas, watercooled condensers could be the most 

effective form of condensing. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with Hoshizaki’s 

comment that water-cooled condensers 

can be a cost-effective form of 

condensing. DOE does not envision 

promulgating any rule that would 

eliminate water-cooled condensers. 

Since DOE’s regulatory authority relates 

to the efficiency of equipment 

manufactured or sold in the U.S. but not 

to how equipment is installed or used, 

DOE does not plan to promulgate rules 

mandating use of closed loops. DOE is 

not proposing to perform the research 

suggested by NEEA into the prevalence 

of open- versus closed-loop 

installations. It is always DOE’s 

objective to model energy usage as 

accurately as possible, so DOE requests 

stakeholder assistance in quantifying 

the impact of local regulations such as 

any local regulation potentially 

forbidding an open-loop installation. 

Scotsman and Manitowoc stated that, 

historically, most installations were 

likely open-loop, but the regulations 

discussed by NPCC would argue that in 

the future such is less likely to be true. 

DOE’s analyses to date have not 

included design options that would 

change condenser water usage, a fact 

that means the question of modeling 

condenser water in the LCC models 

condenser water usage as open- or 

closed-loop impacts the absolute value 

of life-cycle costs and total national 

costs of ownership and operation, but 

not LCC savings or increases/decreases 

in NPV. Given that Scotsman and 

Manitowoc believe that historically 

most installations have likely been open 

loop, DOE chose to continue to model 

water usage as an open-loop (or singlepass) system. 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

In response to the requirements of 

EPCA in (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 

6313(d)(4)), DOE conducts LCC and PBP 

analysis to evaluate the economic 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on individual 

commercial customers—that is, buyers 

of the equipment. This section describes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14892 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

36Water costs are the total of water and 

wastewater costs. Wastewater utilities tend to not 

meter customer wastewater flows, and base billings 

on water commodity billings. For this reason, water 

usage is used as the basis for both water and 

wastewater costs, and the two are aggregated in the 

LCC and PBP analysis. 

37Monte Carlo simulation is, generally, a 

computerized mathematical technique that allows 

for computation of the outputs from a mathematical 

model based on multiple simulations using 

different input values. The input values are varied 

based on the uncertainties inherent to those inputs. 

The combination of the input values of different 

inputs is carried out in a random fashion to 

simulate the different probable input combinations. 

The outputs of the Monte Carlo simulations reflect 

the various probable outputs that are possible due 

to the uncertainties in the inputs. 

the analyses and the spreadsheet model 

DOE used. NOPR TSD chapter 8 details 

the model and all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses. 

LCC is defined as the total customer 

cost over the lifetime of the equipment, 

and consists of installed cost (purchase 

and installation costs) and operating 

costs (maintenance, repair, water,36 and 

energy costs). DOE discounts future 

operating costs to the time of purchase 

and sums them over the expected 

lifetime of the unit of equipment. PBP 

is defined as the estimated amount of 

time it takes customers to recover the 

higher installed costs of more-efficient 

equipment through savings in operating 

costs. DOE calculates the PBP by 

dividing the increase in installed costs 

by the savings in annual operating costs. 

DOE measures the changes in LCC and 

in PBP associated with a given energy 

and water use standard level relative to 

a base-case forecast of equipment energy 

and water use (or the ‘‘baseline energy 

and water use’’). The base-case forecast 

reflects the market in the absence of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. 

The installed cost of equipment to a 

customer is the sum of the equipment 

purchase price and installation costs. 

The purchase price includes MPC, to 

which a manufacturer markup (which is 

assumed to include at least a first level 

of outbound freight cost) is applied to 

obtain the MSP. This value is calculated 

as part of the engineering analysis 

(chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD). DOE then 

applies additional markups to the 

equipment to account for the costs 

associated with the distribution 

channels for the particular type of 

equipment (chapter 6 of the NOPR 

TSD). Installation costs are varied by 

State depending on the prevailing labor 

rates. 

Operating costs for automatic 

commercial ice makers are the sum of 

maintenance costs, repair costs, water, 

and energy costs. These costs are 

incurred over the life of the equipment 

and therefore are discounted to the base 

year (2018, which is the proposed 

effective date of the amended standards 

that will be established as part of this 

rulemaking). The sum of the installed 

cost and the operating cost, discounted 

to reflect the present value, is termed 

the life-cycle cost or LCC. 

Generally, customers incur higher 

installed costs when they purchase 

higher efficiency equipment, and these 

cost increments will be partially or 

wholly offset by savings in the operating 

costs over the lifetime of the equipment. 

Usually, the savings in operating costs 

are due to savings in energy costs 

because higher efficiency equipment 

uses less energy over the lifetime of the 

equipment. Often, the LCC of higher 

efficiency equipment is lower compared 

to lower-efficiency equipment. 

The PBP of higher efficiency 

equipment is obtained by dividing the 

increase in the installed cost by the 

decrease in annual operating cost. For 

this calculation, DOE uses the first-year 

operating cost decreases as the estimate 

of the decrease in operating cost, noting 

that some of the repair and maintenance 

costs used in the analysis are 

annualized estimates of costs. DOE 

calculates a PBP for each efficiency 

level of each equipment class. In 

addition to the energy costs (calculated 

using the electricity price forecast for 

the first year), the first-year operating 

costs also include annualized 

maintenance and repair costs. 

Apart from MSP, installation costs, 

and maintenance and repair costs, other 

important inputs for the LCC analysis 

are markups and sales tax, equipment 

energy consumption, electricity prices 

and future price trends, expected 

equipment lifetime, and discount rates. 

As part of the engineering analysis, 

design option levels were ordered based 

on increasing efficiency (decreased 

energy and water consumption) and 

increasing MSP values. DOE developed 

four to seven energy use levels for each 

equipment class, henceforth referred to 

as ‘‘efficiency levels,’’ through the 

analysis of engineering design options. 

For all equipment classes, efficiency 

levels were set at specific intervals— 

e.g., 10 percent improvement over base 

energy usage, 15 percent improvement, 

20 percent improvement. The max-tech 

efficiency level is the only exception. At 

the max-tech level, the efficiency 

improvement matched the specific 

levels identified in the engineering 

analysis. 

The base efficiency level (level 1) in 

each equipment class is the least 

efficient and the least expensive 

equipment in that class. The higher 

efficiency levels (level 2 and higher) 

exhibit progressive increases in 

efficiency and cost with the highest 

efficiency level corresponding to the 

max-tech level. LCC savings and PBP 

are calculated for each selected 

efficiency level of each equipment class. 

Many inputs for the LCC analysis are 

estimated from the best available data in 

the market, and in some cases the inputs 

are generally accepted values within the 

industry. In general, each input value 

has a range of values associated with it. 

While single representative values for 

each input may yield an output that is 

the most probable value for that output, 

such an analysis does not give the 

general range of values that can be 

attributed to a particular output value. 

Therefore, DOE carried out the LCC 

analysis in the form of Monte Carlo 

simulations 37 in which certain inputs 

were expressed as a range of values and 

probability distributions that account 

for the ranges of values that may be 

typically associated with the respective 

input values. The results or outputs of 

the LCC analysis are presented in the 

form of mean LCC savings, percentages 

of customers experiencing net savings, 

net cost and no impact in LCC, and 

median PBP. For each equipment class, 

10,000 Monte Carlo simulations were 

carried out. The simulations were 

conducted using Microsoft Excel and 

Crystal Ball, a commercially available 

Excel add-in used to carry out Monte 

Carlo simulations. 

LCC savings and PBP are calculated 

by comparing the installed costs and 

LCC values of standards-case scenarios 

against those of base-case scenarios. The 

base-case scenario is the scenario in 

which equipment is assumed to be 

purchased by customers in the absence 

of the proposed energy conservation 

standards. Standards-case scenarios are 

scenarios in which equipment is 

assumed to be purchased by customers 

after the amended energy conservation 

standards, determined as part of the 

current rulemaking, go into effect. The 

number of standards-case scenarios for 

an equipment class is equal to one less 

than the total number of efficiency 

levels in that equipment class because 

each efficiency level above efficiency 

level 1 represents a potential amended 

standard. Usually, the equipment 

available in the market will have a 

distribution of efficiencies. Therefore, 

for both base-case and standards-case 

scenarios, in the LCC analysis, DOE 

assumed a distribution of efficiencies in 

the market, and the distribution was 

assumed to be spread across all 

efficiency levels in the LCC analysis (see 

NOPR TSD chapter 10). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14893 

39Weibull survival function is a continuous 

probability distribution function that is commonly 

used to approximate the distribution of equipment 

lifetimes. 

Recognizing that different types of 

businesses and industries that use 

automatic commercial ice makers face 

different energy prices, and apply 

different discount rates to purchase 

decisions, DOE analyzed variability and 

uncertainty in the LCC and PBP results 

by performing the LCC and PBP 

calculations for seven types of 

businesses: (1) Health care; (2) lodging; 

(3) foodservice; (4) retail; (5) education; 

(6) food sales; and (7) offices. Different 

types of businesses face different energy 

prices and also exhibit differing 

discount rates that they apply to 

purchase decisions. 

Expected equipment lifetime is 

another input for which it is 

inappropriate to use a single value for 

each equipment class. Therefore, DOE 

assumed a distribution of equipment 

lifetimes that are defined by Weibull 

survival functions.38

Equipment lifetime is a key input for 

the LCC and PBP analysis. For 

automatic commercial ice maker 

equipment, there is a general consensus 

among industry stakeholders that the 

typical equipment lifetime is 

approximately 7 to 10 years with an 

average of 8.5 years. There was no data 

or comment to suggest that lifetimes are 

unique to each equipment class. 

Therefore, DOE assumed a distribution 

of equipment lifetimes that is defined by 

Weibull 39 survival functions, with an 

average value of 8.5 years. 

Another factor influencing the LCC 

analysis is the State in which the 

automatic commercial ice maker is 

installed. Inputs that vary based on this 

factor include installation costs, water 

and energy prices, and sales tax (plus 

the associated distribution chain 

markups). At the national level, the 

spreadsheets explicitly modeled 

variability in the model inputs for water 

price, electricity price, and markups 

using probability distributions based on 

the relative populations in all States. 

Detailed descriptions of the 

methodology used for the LCC analysis, 

along with a discussion of inputs and 

results, are presented in chapter 8 and 

appendices 8A and 8B of the NOPR 

TSD. 

1. Equipment Cost 

To calculate customer equipment 

costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs 

developed in the engineering analysis 

by the distribution channel markups, 

described in section IV.E. DOE applied 

baseline markups to baseline MSPs and 

incremental markups to the MSP 

increments associated with higher 

efficiency levels. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

developed a projection of price trends 

for automatic commercial ice maker 

equipment, indicating that based on 

historical price trends the MSP would 

be projected to decline by 0.4 percent 

from the 2012 estimation of MSP values 

through the 2018 assumed start date of 

new or amended standards. The 

preliminary analysis also indicated an 

approximately 1.6 percent decline from 

the MSP values estimated in 2012 to the 

end of the 30-year NIA analysis period 

used in the preliminary analysis. Price 

trends generated considerable 

discussion during the LCC presentation 

at the February 2012 preliminary 

analysis public meeting (and nearly all 

comments specific to the NIA were 

concerning price trends). 

Scotsman stated that it typically sees 

some increase in costs and that it tries 

to recapture at least some of the 

increased cost in the form of price 

increases and usually cannot recover all 

of it. Scotsman stated that it does not 

expect to see prices going down over the 

years and does not think it makes a lot 

of sense. Scotsman added that for 

household refrigerators and other 

industries, much of the price decrease 

that has been seen over the years is 

offshored manufacturing. The automatic 

commercial ice maker manufacturers do 

not have the scale to consider doing 

that, according to Scotsman. (Scotsman, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at pp. 

127–128) Scotsman analyzed the 

historical shipments data and provided 

graphs showing how different the 

forecast would be if a different time 

period was selected. Scotsman 

suggested that a long-term growth trend 

of 1.5 percent is most realistic. 

(Scotsman, No. 46 at pp. 6–7) 

NRDC stated that price learning is 

theoretically expected and empirically 

demonstrated, and that it supported 

DOE’s incorporation of price learning in 

the rulemaking. (NRDC, No. 48 at p. 2) 

AHRI urged DOE to assume that price 

learning is zero, or in other words, to 

hold MSP constant. AHRI stated that it 

had performed an analysis of the data 

used by DOE and that it believed that 

the data did not support an assumption 

of price learning greater than zero. 

(AHRI, No. 49 at p. 5 and exhibit A) 

Manitowoc stated that there is no real 

basis to expect that the manufacturing 

costs of ice machines will decrease in 

the future due to efficiency gains in 

production because the ice machine 

designs are mature and the 

manufacturing processes are stable. 

Manitowoc added that the increase in 

costs associated with design options is 

only due to higher cost components or 

higher cost material employed and that 

the annual production volumes do not 

allow for further investment in 

automation of the manufacturing 

processes beyond what is already in 

place. (Manitowoc, No. 54 at p. 4) 

As is customary between the 

preliminary analysis and the NOPR 

phases of a rulemaking, DOE reexamined the data available and 

updated the analyses, in this specific 

instance, the price trend analysis. At a 

high level, DOE agrees with the NRDC 

comment that evidence indicates price 

learning is theoretically expected. In 

response to the AHRI, Manitowoc, and 

Scotsman comments that the data do not 

support the price trends, DOE reexamined the data used in the analysis, 

and re-analyzed price trends with 

updated data. In the preliminary 

analysis, DOE used a Producer Price 

Index (PPI) that included airconditioning, refrigeration, and forced 

air heating equipment. For the NOPR, 

DOE was able to identify a PPI that was 

a subset of the PPI used for the 

preliminary analysis. The subset 

includes only commercial refrigeration 

and related equipment, and excludes 

unrelated equipment. Using this PPI for 

the automatic commercial ice maker 

price trends analysis yields a price 

decline of roughly 1.6 percent over the 

period of 2012 (the year for which MSP 

was estimated) through 2047. 

2. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 

Costs 

a. Installation Costs 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

equipment. The installation costs may 

vary from one equipment class to 

another, but they typically do not vary 

among efficiency levels within an 

equipment class. Most automatic 

commercial ice makers are installed in 

fairly standard configurations. For its 

preliminary analysis, DOE tentatively 

concluded that the engineering design 

options do not impact the installation 

cost within an equipment class. DOE 

therefore assumed that the installation 

cost for automatic commercial ice 

makers does not vary among efficiency 

levels within an equipment class. Costs 

that do not vary with efficiency levels 

do not impact the LCC, PBP, or NIA 

results. In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

estimated the installation cost as a fixed 

percentage of the total MSP for the 

baseline efficiency level for a given 

equipment class, set at 10 percent. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14894 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

40RS Means Company, Inc. 2013 RS Means 

Electrical Cost Data. 2013. Kingston, MA. 

Manitowoc agreed with DOE’s 

assumption that installation costs 

generally would be unaffected by 

moving to the higher efficiency level. 

However, Manitowoc pointed out that 

some efficiency differences may cause 

variation in installation costs. 

Manitowoc further explained that many 

remote condensers require a crane for 

installation; therefore, bigger condensers 

of automatic commercial ice maker 

equipment with higher efficiency levels 

might result in higher rental and labor 

costs associated with the installation. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 136) In its written 

comments to DOE, Manitowoc further 

clarified that higher efficiency 

equipment would not incur additional 

installation costs unless the size of the 

equipment increases in such a way as to 

exceed the industry norms. (Manitowoc, 

No. 54 at p. 4) However, Hoshizaki 

indicated installation costs will increase 

with higher levels of energy efficiency 

due to special installation requirements 

for the new machine and possible 

changes to the structure that might be 

required. Furthermore, AHRI 

commented that it is incorrect for DOE 

to assume that changes in installation 

will be negligible for more-efficient 

equipment. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 5) 

Scotsman pointed out that if the 

technology were assumed to involve a 

drain water heat exchange, the 

installation costs would increase. 

(Scotsman, No. 46 at p. 3) 

In responses to the comments above, 

DOE further evaluated the costs 

associated with installation and revised 

the installation cost estimation methods. 

For the NOPR, DOE estimated material 

and labor cost to install equipment 

based on RS Means cost estimation 

data 40 and on telephone conservations 

with contractors. Estimated installation 

costs vary by equipment class and by 

State. DOE decided to continue to 

assume installation cost will be constant 

for all efficiency levels within an 

equipment class. 

In response to Manitowoc’s comment 

that greater equipment size might result 

in higher rental and labor costs, DOE 

notes that while the initial decision to 

avoid equipment size increases in the 

engineering analysis was eliminated, 

DOE attempted to minimize equipment 

size increases. Thus, proposed standard 

levels should not add significantly to 

labor and crane rental costs. Nor does 

DOE believe the size increases would 

require structural changes as 

hypothesized by Hoshizaki. In response 

to the Manitowoc and Scotsman 

comments about drain water heat 

exchanger installation costs, DOE notes 

the promotional material of drain water 

heat exchanger manufacturers indicate 

the units can be installed with four 

additional water attachments, a level of 

effort that would likely not add to the 

cost of installations. Finally, in response 

to Hoshizaki’s general statement that 

higher efficiency levels will impose 

specialized installation requirements, a 

review of the design options included in 

the DOE engineering analysis did not 

reveal any options likely to impose 

specific cost increases. To better 

respond to the Hoshizaki comment, 

DOE requests specificity—which design 

options will impose increases in 

installation costs and what would the 

magnitude of such cost increases be? 

b. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

The repair cost is the average annual 

cost to the customer for replacing or 

repairing components in the automatic 

commercial ice maker that have failed. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

approximated the repair cost as a 3- 

percent fixed percentage of the total 

baseline MSP for each equipment class 

and assumed that repair costs were 

constant within an equipment class for 

all efficiency levels. 

Maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the proper operation of the 

equipment. The maintenance cost does 

not include the costs associated with the 

replacement or repair of components 

that have failed, which are included as 

repair costs. In the preliminary analysis, 

DOE applied a 3-percent preventative 

maintenance cost that remains constant 

across all equipment efficiency levels 

because data were not available to 

indicate how maintenance costs vary 

with equipment levels. 

Scotsman stated that, in general, 

whenever new technology is 

introduced, failure rates increase. 

Scotsman stated that when the failures 

occur during the warranty period, the 

cost falls on manufacturers. Ice makers 

stress components in ways that they are 

not stressed in steady-state machines, 

according to Scotsman, so even with 

well-known technologies it is not 

known how their failure rates will fare 

in ice makers. In addition, Scotsman 

commented that if the technology was 

assumed to involve a drain water heat 

exchanger, the maintenance cost would 

increase. (Scotsman, No. 46 at pp. 3–4) 

Likewise, Hoshizaki stated that repair 

costs are relative to each machine and 

that it is difficult to compute a standard 

average. Manufacturers are still working 

to analyze the effects of the 2010 

standards on repair costs, according to 

Hoshizaki. (Hoshizaki, No. 46 at pp. 3– 

4) 

Manitowoc commented that the repair 

costs will be affected by the efficiency 

levels. Manitowoc stated that is has 

specific concerns about some 

components such as motors. Manitowoc 

pointed out that ECM motors might 

enhance the energy efficiencies, but 

these motors are probably less reliable 

than standard permanent split capacitor 

motors because ECM motors have more 

parts. Manitowoc further stated that, in 

general, more parts increase the chances 

that a component will fail, which in 

turn potentially increases the repair 

costs. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at p. 136) In addition, 

Scotsman stated that modeling repair 

cost as a percentage of baseline costs 

would understate repair cost. Also using 

the example of an ECM fan motor, 

Scotsman explained that ECM motor has 

an incremental cost of $35 to install; 

however, when it needs to be replaced, 

it is considerably more costly than the 

replacement of the motors that are 

currently used on the market. 

Additionally, Scotsman also noted the 

ECM fan motor has more parts than the 

current motors that are commonly 

applied in the market, making it likely 

to fail more often. Therefore, according 

to Scotsman, ECM fan motors might 

require higher average annual repair 

costs than current motors used in the 

baseline units. (Scotsman, No. 46 at pp. 

3–4) Hoshizaki pointed out higher water 

and energy efficiency level may increase 

maintenance costs. Hoshizaki elaborated 

that equipment with lower water usage 

and improved electrical efficiencies 

might need more frequent maintenance 

such as cleaning. (Hoshizaki, No. 53 at 

p. 2) 

In addition, Howe commented on the 

impact of new standards on repairing 

and maintenance costs. Howe stated 

that the modification of new ice makers 

will cause increased repair and 

maintenance costs due to the need to 

educate service personnel. The 

percentage of the baseline costs will 

increase, according to Howe. (Howe, No. 

51 at p. 4) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

evaluated how repair and maintenance 

costs were estimated and revised the 

methodology. For repair costs, DOE 

examined the major components of ice 

makers and identified expected failure 

rates for each component. For those 

components for which available 

information indicates a failure might 

occur within the expected 8.5-year 

equipment life, DOE estimated repair or 

replacement costs. Under this 

methodology, repair and replacement 

costs are based on the original 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14895 

41U.S. Energy Information Administration. Sales 

and revenue data by state, monthly back to 1990 

(Form EIA–826). (Last accessed June 26, 2013). 

www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#sales 

42The spreadsheet tool that DOE used to conduct 

the LCC and PBP analyses allows users to select 

price forecasts from either AEO’s High Economic 

Growth or Low Economic Growth Cases. Users can 

thereby estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP 

results to different energy price forecasts. 

43American Water Works Association. 2008 

Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 2009. Denver, 

CO. Report No. 54004. 

44American Water Works Association. 2010 

Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 2011. Denver, 

CO. Report No. 54006. 

45American Water Works Association. 2012 

Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 2013. Denver, 

CO. Report No. 54008. 

46The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines CPI as 

a measure of the average change over time in the 

prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket 

of consumer goods and services. For more 

information see www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm. 

equipment costs, so the more expensive 

the components are, the greater the 

expected repair or replacement cost. For 

design options modeled in the 

engineering analysis, DOE estimated 

repair costs and if they were different 

than the baseline cost, the repair costs 

were either increased or decreased 

accordingly. (Although theoretically 

possible, in the case of the ice maker 

analysis, repair costs did not decrease 

with efficiency levels for any equipment 

class.) Thus, consistent with Hoshizaki’s 

comment about the difficulty of 

estimating one standard average, DOE 

now estimates different repair and 

replacement costs for all equipment 

classes. 

DOE’s revision to the repair cost 

methodology is consistent with the 

Manitowoc, Hoshizaki, Scotsman, and 

Howe comments that repair costs 

should increase with efficiency level. 

Consistent with the Manitowoc and 

Scotsman comments, DOE assumed that 

ECM fan motors would increase repair 

costs relative to the baseline. In 

response to Scotsman’s comments about 

drain water heat exchangers, DOE notes 

that manufacturer literature indicates an 

expected useful life greater than 8.5 

years, so no replacement was assumed 

for this component. 

In the NOPR analyses, DOE estimated 

material and labor costs for preventative 

maintenance based on RS Means cost 

estimation data and on telephone 

conservations with contractors. DOE 

assumed maintenance cost would 

remain constant for all efficiency levels 

within an equipment class. In response 

to Hoshizaki’s comment about the 

impact of reduced water usage on 

maintenance, the DOE analyses for 7 of 

12 primary equipment classes did not 

involve changes to water usage. In the 

remaining 5 (batch) equipment classes, 

DOE’s analysis did not assume potable 

water usage would be reduced below 20 

gallons per 100 lb ice—a level 

manufacturers indicated was a point 

below which maintenance costs would 

increase. (Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 42 at p. 64; Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 

65) Thus, for the NOPR, DOE assumes 

that maintenance costs will not vary by 

efficiency level. 

3. Annual Energy and Water 

Consumption 

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD details 

DOE’s analysis of annual energy and 

water usage at various efficiency levels 

of automatic commercial ice makers. 

Annual energy and water consumption 

inputs by automatic commercial ice 

maker equipment class are based on the 

engineering analysis estimates of 

kilowatt-hours of electricity per 100 lb 

ice and gallons of water per 100 lb ice, 

translated to annual kilowatt-hours and 

gallons in the energy and water use 

analysis (chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD). 

The development of energy and water 

usage inputs is discussed in section 

IV.G.6 along with public input and 

DOE’s response to the public input. 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE calculated average commercial 

electricity prices using the EIA Form 

EIA–826 data obtained online from the 

‘‘Database: Sales (consumption), 

revenue, prices & customers’’ Web 

page.41 The EIA data reports average 

commercial sector retail prices 

calculated as total revenues from 

commercial sales divided by total 

commercial energy sales in kilowatthours, by State and for the nation. DOE 

received no recommendations or 

suggestions regarding this set of 

assumptions at the February 2012 

preliminary analysis public meeting or 

in written comments. 

5. Energy Price Projections 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years for the preliminary analysis TSD, 

DOE multiplied the average regional 

energy prices described above by the 

forecast of annual average commercial 

energy price indices developed in the 

Reference Case from 

AEO2013.42 AEO2013 forecasted prices 

through 2040. To estimate the price 

trends after 2040, DOE assumed the 

same average annual rate of change in 

prices as exhibited by the forecast over 

the 2031 to 2040 period. DOE received 

no recommendations or suggestions 

regarding this set of assumptions at the 

February 2012 preliminary analysis 

public meeting or in written comments. 

6. Water Prices 

To estimate water prices in future 

years for the preliminary analysis TSD, 

DOE used price data from the 2008,43

2010,44 and 2012 American Water 

Works Water (AWWA) and Wastewater 

Surveys.45 The AWWA 2012 survey was 

the primary data set. No data exists to 

disaggregate water prices for individual 

business types, so DOE varied prices by 

state only and not by business type 

within a state. For each state, DOE 

combined all individual utility 

observations within the state to develop 

one value for each state for water and 

wastewater service. Since water and 

wastewater billings are frequently tied 

to the same metered commodity values, 

DOE combined the prices for water and 

wastewater into one total dollars per 

1,000 gallons figure. DOE used the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for 

water-related consumption (1973– 

2012) 46 in developing a real growth rate 

for water and wastewater price 

forecasts. 

During the public meeting and in 

written comments, stakeholders 

commented on the water prices DOE 

used in its LCC analysis. NPCC stated 

that water and wastewater price 

escalation has been systematically 

higher than the CPI. Further, NPCC 

pointed out that EPA’s water-related 

regulations governed by the Clean Water 

Act might level out the escalation rates 

once the regulations’ requirements were 

satisfied, even though NPCC does not 

anticipate the escalation rates will 

diminish much. Given the impact of 

EPA’s latest water-related regulations 

was not completed, NPCC then raised 

the question whether DOE should use 

both a higher escalation rate and CPI in 

its analysis. NPCC then suggested using 

a higher escalated rate in the analysis 

for a short-run period until the effective 

date of EPA’s latest water-related 

regulations and move to the CPI for the 

longer term analysis starting with the 

effective date of EPA’s relevant 

regulations. (NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No, 42 at pp. 132–134) In 

addition, the Alliance argued that water 

use and energy use cannot be compared 

on a simple price basis because of key 

differences between the two resources. 

The Alliance stated that, first, energy 

comes from multiple sources and is a 

commodity whose prices fluctuate 

based on supply and demand. 

Freshwater, on the other hand, is in 

limited supply and water prices are 

heavily regulated based on the cost of 

treatment and delivery, which is less 

directly affected by supply and demand, 

according to the Alliance. The Alliance 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14896 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

47American Water Works Association. 2012 

Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 2013. Denver, 

CO. Report No. 54008. 

48 Damodaran financial data is available at: 

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/ (Last 

accessed January 31, 2013). 

49Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, State and 

Local Bonds—Bond Buyer Go 20-Bond Municipal 

Bond Index. (Last accessed April 6, 2012). Annual 

data for 1973–2011 was available at: http://

research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MSLB20/

downloaddata?cid=32995). 

50Rate for 2012 calculated from monthly data. 

Data source: U.S. Federal Reserve (Last accessed 

February 20, 2013) (Available at: 

www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm). 

51Rate calculated with 1973–2012 data. Data 

source: U.S. Federal Reserve (Last accessed 

February 20, 2013) (Available at: 

www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm). 

52Small Business Administration data on loans 

between $10,000 and $99,000 compared to AAA 

Corporate Rates. <http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/

7540/6282> Data last accessed on June 10, 2013. 

further stated that when water demand 

overcomes the readily available fresh 

water resources in the U.S., the 

alternative water sources will likely 

require more costly infrastructure and 

operational changes such as 

desalination to fulfill the demand for 

fresh water, which is also a very energy 

intensive process. Therefore, the 

Alliance recommended that DOE 

consider the marginal costs of 

alternative water sources, such as 

desalination, in its analyses to properly 

account for all water costs as applied to 

water-cooled condensers. (Alliance, No. 

45 at p. 4) 

DOE appreciates the comments that 

EPA water regulations under the Clean 

Water Act may impact the escalation 

rate of water price used in DOE’s 

analysis and the observation about 

desalination plants being the next 

source of water available in many 

localities. With respect to the Clean 

Water Act comment, DOE notes that the 

Clean Water Act has been in existence 

since 1972. Thus, the water price trends 

should include the impacts of historical 

costs attributable to the Clean Water 

Act. Throughout that entire period, the 

CPI for water utility costs grew at an 

average rate of 1.6 percent faster than 

the total CPI, perhaps validating the 

NPCC point. As for capturing the effects 

of unknown future EPA regulations, 

DOE considers this a speculative effort, 

and DOE has long adhered to a guiding 

principle that the analyses avoid 

speculating in this fashion. With respect 

to the comment about desalination and 

the accompanying suggestion that DOE 

should use marginal water prices, DOE 

has developed water prices using recent 

water price data, which would include 

resource costs that underlie the 

provision of water. Looking forward, 

DOE acknowledges that new water 

resources brought online in future years 

may differ from those of the past, but 

DOE has not identified a source that 

carefully and systematically forecasts 

the impact of future developments of 

this nature, as the AEO2013 does in the 

case of electricity. Thus, to attempt to 

project growth rates for 50 states to 

capture these resource changes would 

be speculative. Rather than speculate, 

DOE has updated the calculation of 

State-level water prices with the 

inclusion of the 2012 AWWA survey 47

and additional consumer price index 

values. 

7. Discount Rates 

The discount rate is the rate at which 

future expenditures are discounted to 

establish their present value. DOE 

determined the discount rate by 

estimating the cost of capital for 

purchasers of automatic commercial ice 

makers. Most purchasers use both debt 

and equity capital to fund investments. 

Therefore, for most purchasers, the 

discount rate is the weighted average 

cost of debt and equity financing, or the 

weighted average cost of capital 

(WACC), less the expected inflation. 

To estimate the WACC of automatic 

commercial ice maker purchasers, DOE 

used a sample of nearly 1,200 

companies grouped to be representative 

of operators of each of the commercial 

business types (health care, lodging, 

foodservice, retail, education, food 

sales, and offices) drawn from a 

database of 6,177 U.S. companies 

presented on the Damodaran Online 

Web site.48 This database includes most 

of the publicly-traded companies in the 

United States. The WACC approach for 

determining discount rates accounts for 

the current tax status of individual firms 

on an overall corporate basis. DOE did 

not evaluate the marginal effects of 

increased costs, and, thus, depreciation 

due to more expensive equipment, on 

the overall tax status. 

DOE used the final sample of 

companies to represent purchasers of 

automatic commercial ice makers. For 

each company in the sample, DOE 

combined company-specific information 

from the Damodaran Online Web site, 

long-term returns on the Standard & 

Poor’s 500 stock market index from the 

Damodaran Online Web site, nominal 

long-term Federal government bond 

rates, and long-term inflation to estimate 

a WACC for each firm in the sample. 

For most educational buildings and a 

portion of the office buildings and 

cafeterias occupied and/or operated by 

public schools, universities, and State 

and local government agencies, DOE 

estimated the cost of capital based on a 

40-year geometric mean of an index of 

long-term tax-exempt municipal bonds 

(≤20 years).49 50 Federal office space was 

assumed to use the Federal bond rate, 

derived as the 40-year geometric average 

of long-term (≤10 years) U.S. 

government securities.51

DOE recognizes that within the 

business types purchasing automatic 

commercial ice makers there will be 

small businesses with limited access to 

capital markets. Such businesses tend to 

be viewed as higher risk by lenders and 

face higher capital costs as a result. To 

account for this, DOE included an 

additional risk premium for small 

businesses. The premium, 1.9 percent, 

was developed from information found 

on the Small Business Administration 

Web site.52

Chapter 8 of the TSD provides more 

information on the derivation of 

discount rates. The average discount 

rate by business type is shown on Table 

IV.26. 

TABLE IV.26—AVERAGE DISCOUNT

RATE BY BUSINESS TYPE

Business type 

Average discount rate (real) 

(%) 

Health Care ........................ 2.7 

Lodging ............................... 6.8 

Foodservice ........................ 5.8 

Retail ................................... 4.6 

Education ............................ 3.0 

Food Sales ......................... 5.1 

Office .................................. 4.6 

8. Lifetime 

DOE defines lifetime as the age at 

which typical automatic commercial ice 

maker equipment is retired from service. 

DOE estimated equipment lifetime 

based on its discussion with industry 

experts, and concluded a typical 

lifetime of 8.5 years. AHRI agreed with 

DOE’s proposed average equipment 

lifetime of 8.5 years. (Alliance, No. 49 

at p. 5) Hoshizaki agreed that 8.5 years 

is a fair assumption for commercial cube 

type ice makers. However, Hoshizaki 

stated that continuous type ice makers 

might have a shorter life. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 53 at p. 2) 

For the NOPR analyses, DOE elected 

to use an 8.5-year average life for all 

equipment classes. With regard to the 

Hoshizaki statement that continuous 

type ice makers might have shorter life 

spans, DOE requests specific 

information to assist in determining 

whether continuous and batch type 

equipment should be analyzed using 

differing assumptions for equipment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14897 

life. All literature on the subject of ice 

maker lifetimes reviewed by DOE, 

including comments received during the 

Framework phase of this rulemaking, 

indicates a 7 to 10 year life, with 8.5 

years being a reasonable average. DOE 

therefore is proposing in this NOPR to 

use 8.5 years as automatic commercial 

ice maker lifetime for DOE’s LCC 

analysis for covered automatic 

commercial ice maker equipment, but 

would welcome additional data 

concerning specific differences between 

equipment classes. 

9. Compliance Date of Standards 

EPCA prescribes that DOE must 

review and determine whether to amend 

performance-based standards for cube 

type automatic commercial ice makers 

by January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)(A)) In addition, EPCA 

requires that the amended standards 

established in this rulemaking must 

apply to equipment that is 

manufactured on or after 3 years after 

the final rule is published in the Federal 

Register unless DOE determines, by 

rule, that a 3-year period is inadequate, 

in which case DOE may extend the 

compliance date for that standard by an 

additional 2 years. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)(C)) DOE began this 

rulemaking with the expectation of 

completing it prior to the January 1, 

2015 required date, and, therefore, 

assumed during the preliminary 

analysis that new and amended 

standards would take effect in 2016. 

However, for the NOPR analyses, based 

on the January 1, 2015 statutory 

deadline and giving manufacturers 3 

years to meet the new and amended 

standards, DOE assumes that the most 

likely compliance date for the standards 

set by this rulemaking would be January 

1, 2018. Therefore, DOE calculated the 

LCC and PBP for automatic commercial 

ice makers under the assumption that 

compliant equipment would be 

purchased in 2018, the year when 

compliance with the amended standard 

is required. DOE requests comments on 

the January 1, 2018 effective date. 

10. Base-Case and Standards-Case 

Efficiency Distributions 

To estimate the share of affected 

customers who would likely be 

impacted by a standard at a particular 

efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis 

considers the projected distribution of 

efficiencies of equipment that customers 

purchase under the base case (that is, 

the case without new energy efficiency 

standards). DOE refers to this 

distribution of equipment efficiencies as 

a base-case efficiency distribution. 

DOE’s methodology to estimate 

market shares of each efficiency level 

within each equipment class is based on 

an analysis of the automatic commercial 

ice makers currently available for 

purchase by customers. DOE analyzed 

all available models, calculated the 

percentage difference between the 

baseline energy usage embodied in the 

ice maker rulemaking analyses, and 

organized the available units by the 

efficiency levels. DOE then calculated 

the percentage of available models 

falling within each efficiency level bin. 

This efficiency distribution was used in 

the LCC and other downstream analyses 

as the baseline efficiency distribution. 

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

Payback period is the amount of time 

it takes the customer to recover the 

higher purchase cost of more energyefficient equipment as a result of lower 

operating costs. Numerically, the PBP is 

the ratio of the increase in purchase cost 

to the decrease in annual operating 

expenditures. This type of calculation is 

known as a ‘‘simple’’ PBP because it 

does not take into account changes in 

operating cost over time (i.e., as a result 

of changing cost of electricity) or the 

time value of money; that is, the 

calculation is done at an effective 

discount rate of zero percent. PBPs are 

expressed in years. PBPs greater than 

the life of the equipment mean that the 

increased total installed cost of the 

more-efficient equipment is not 

recovered in reduced operating costs 

over the life of the equipment, given the 

conditions specified within the analysis 

such as electricity prices. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation are 

the total installed cost to the customer 

of the equipment for each efficiency 

level and the average annual operating 

expenditures for each efficiency level in 

the first year. The PBP calculation uses 

the same inputs as the LCC analysis, 

except that discount rates are not used. 

12. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

Period 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 

6313(d)(4)) established a rebuttable 

presumption that a new or amended 

standards are economically justified if 

the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. 

While DOE examined the rebuttable 

presumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

are economically justified through a 

more detailed analysis of the economic 

impacts of these levels pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) 6313(d)(4). The 

results of this analysis served as the 

basis for DOE to evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level definitively (thereby supporting or 

rebutting the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). 

H. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

NPV of total customer costs and savings 

that would be expected as a result of the 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The NES and NPV are 

analyzed at specific efficiency levels 

(i.e., TSL) for each equipment class of 

automatic commercial ice makers. DOE 

calculates the NES and NPV based on 

projections of annual equipment 

shipments, along with the annual 

energy consumption and total installed 

cost data from the LCC analysis. For the 

NOPR analysis, DOE forecasted the 

energy savings, operating cost savings, 

equipment costs, and NPV of customer 

benefits for equipment sold from 2018 

through 2047—the year in which the 

last standards-compliant equipment is 

shipped during the 30-year analysis. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of the 

amended standards by comparing basecase projections with standards-case 

projections. The base-case projections 

characterize energy use and customer 

costs for each equipment class in the 

absence of any amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE compares 

these base-case projections with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each equipment class if DOE adopted 

the amended standards at each TSL. For 

the standards cases, DOE assumed a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario in which equipment 

at efficiency levels that do not meet the 

standard level under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to the efficiency level 

that just meets the proposed standard 

level, and equipment already being 

purchased at efficiency levels at or 

above the proposed standard level 

would remain unaffected. 

DOE uses a Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheet model to calculate the 

energy savings and the national 

customer costs and savings from each 

TSL. The NOPR TSD and other 

documentation that DOE provides 

during the rulemaking help explain the 

models and how to use them, and 

interested parties can review DOE’s 

analyses by interacting with these 

spreadsheets. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses average values as inputs (as 

opposed to probability distributions of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14898 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

53Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings 

Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial 

Refrigeration. Final Report, submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Energy. September 23, 2009. Page 41. 

key input parameters from a set of 

possible values). 

For the current analysis, the NIA used 

projections of energy prices and 

commercial building starts from the 

AEO2013 Reference Case. In addition, 

DOE analyzed scenarios that used 

inputs from the AEO2013 Low 

Economic Growth and High Economic 

Growth Cases. These cases have lower 

and higher energy price trends, 

respectively, compared to the Reference 

Case. NIA results based on these cases 

are presented in chapter 10 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

A detailed description of the 

procedure to calculate NES and NPV, 

and inputs for this analysis, are 

provided in chapter 10 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

1. Shipments 

DOE obtained data from AHRI and 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Industrial 

Reports (CIR) to estimate historical 

shipments for automatic commercial ice 

makers. AHRI provided DOE with 

automatic commercial ice maker 

shipment data for 2010 describing the 

distribution of shipments by equipment 

class and by harvest capacity. AHRI’s 

data to DOE also included a 11-year 

history of total shipments from 2000 to 

2010. Additionally, DOE collected total 

automatic commercial ice maker 

shipment data for the period of 1973 to 

2009 from the CIR. DOE reviewed the 

total shipments in the AHRI and CIR 

data, and noted that the CIR-reported 

shipments were consistently higher than 

the AHRI-reported shipments. DOE 

considered the possibility that these 

discrepancies were associated with net 

exports. However, the CIR data 

presented exports as a percentage of 

total production at a high level of 

industry aggregation, thus making it 

impossible to identify ice maker exports 

as a percentage of ice maker production. 

DOE requested input to aid in 

understanding the differences between 

the AHRI and CIR shipments data. DOE 

identified one source with identifiable 

export information, the North American 

Association of Food Equipment 

Manufacturers (NAFEM). NAFEM data 

for two recent calendar years (2007 and 

2008) showed approximately 20 percent 

of total ice maker shipments associated 

with food service equipment as exports. 

Applying a 20 percent export factor to 

the CIR shipments data brought the CIR 

data into approximate agreement with 

the AHRI data. 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE 

relied on the CIR shipment values, 

reduced 20 percent for exports. Using 

adjusted CIR data, DOE created a rolling 

estimate of total existing stock by 

aggregating historical shipments across 

8.5-year historical periods. DOE used 

the CIR data to estimate a time series of 

shipments and total stock for 1994 to 

2006—at the time of the analysis, the 

last year of data available without 

significant gaps in the data due to 

disclosure limitations. For each year, 

using shipments, stock, and the 

estimated 8.5-year life of the equipment, 

DOE estimated that, on average, 14 

percent of shipments were for new 

installations and the remainder for 

replacement of existing stock. 

DOE then combined the historical 

shipments, disaggregated between 

shipments for new installations and 

those for replacement of existing stock, 

and the historical stock values with 

projections of new construction activity 

from AEO2011 to generate a forecast of 

shipments. Stock and shipments were 

first disaggregated to individual 

business types based on data developed 

for DOE on commercial ice maker 

stocks.53 The business types and share 

of stock represented by each type are 

shown in Table IV.27. Using a Weibull 

distribution assuming equipment has an 

average life of 8.5 years and lasts from 

5 to 11 years, DOE developed a 30-year 

series of replacement ice maker 

shipments. Using the base shipments to 

new equipment, and year-to-year 

changes in new commercial sector floor 

space additions from AEO2011, DOE 

estimated shipments for new 

construction. (For the NOPR, DOE is 

using AEO2013 projections of floor 

space additions. The AEO2013 floor 

space additions by building type are 

shown in Table IV.28.) The combination 

of the replacement and new 

construction shipments yields total 

shipments. The final step was to 

distribute total sales to equipment 

classes by multiplying the total 

shipments by percentage shares by 

class. Table IV.29 shows the percentages 

represented by all equipment classes, 

both the primary classes modeled 

explicitly in all NOPR analyses as well 

as the secondary classes. 

TABLE IV.27—BUSINESS TYPES

INCLUDED IN SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Building type 

Building type as 

percent of stock 

(%) 

Health Care ........................ 9 

Lodging ............................... 33 

Foodservice ........................ 22 

Retail ................................... 8 

Education ............................ 7 

Food Sales ......................... 16 

Office .................................. 4 

Total ............................. 100 

TABLE IV.28—AEO2013 FORECAST OF NEW BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE

Year 

New construction 

million ft 2

Health care Lodging Foodservice Retail Education Food sales Office 

2013 ............................. 66 147 30 276 247 21 173 

2018 ............................. 67 164 50 424 208 35 409 

2020 ............................. 65 178 48 407 197 33 452 

2025 ............................. 63 181 48 442 169 33 392 

2030 ............................. 71 150 54 508 191 38 273 

2035 ............................. 73 207 56 522 228 39 412 

2040 ............................. 76 190 56 562 252 39 405 

Annual Growth Factor, 

2031–2040 ................ 2.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 1.7% 2.3% 2.1% 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14899 

TABLE IV.29—PERCENT OF SHIPPED

UNITS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL

ICE MAKERS

Equipment class Percentage of 

shipments 

IMH–W–Small–B .................. 4.54 

IMH–W–Med–B .................... 2.90 

IMH–W–Large–B .................. 0.48 

IMH–A–Small–B ................... 27.08 

IMH–A–Large–B ................... 16.14 

RCU–Small–B ....................... 5.43 

RCU–RC/NC–Large–B ......... 6.08 

SCU–W–Small–B ................. 0.68 

SCU–W–Large–B ................. 0.22 

SCU–A–Small–B .................. 13.85 

SCU–A–Large–B .................. 6.56 

IMH–W–Small–C .................. 0.68 

IMH–W–Large–C .................. 0.17 

IMH–A–Small–C ................... 3.53 

IMH–A–Large–C ................... 1.07 

RCU–Small–C ...................... 0.83 

RCU–Large–C ...................... 0.87 

SCU–W–Small–C ................. 0.15 

SCU–W–Large–C ................. 0.00 

SCU–A–Small–C .................. 8.75 

SCU–A–Large–C .................. 0.00 

Total ............................... 100.00 

Source: AHRI, 2010 Shipments data submitted to DOE as part of this rulemaking. 

Comments related to shipment 

analysis received during the February 

2012 preliminary analysis public 

meeting are listed below along with 

DOE’s responses to the comments. 

AHRI, in response to DOE’s question 

about inconsistencies between AHRI 

and CIR data, indicated it has found 

discrepancies and that these 

discrepancies relate to the way 

manufacturers report to the Census 

Bureau. AHRI stated that some 

residential ice makers may be lumped 

into the Census Bureau data. AHRI 

stated that it is confident in its data and 

would trust it as compared to the 

Census Bureau data. (AHRI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 155) 

AHRI commented that it believes the 

historical shipments numbers it 

provided to DOE are more consistent in 

terms of product definitions and other 

factors than the Census Bureau 

shipments. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 6) In 

response to a question by NPCC, 

Manitowoc indicated that while the 

automatic commercial ice makers 

market was still a little below historical 

levels, it was recovered from 2009. 

Manitowoc stated the product mix 

calculated by DOE is a ‘‘pretty good’’ 

snapshot, but there are shifts over time 

between batch and continuous types. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 147) Howe recommended 

using the Census Bureau shipments data 

because it is more encompassing. 

(Howe, No. 51 at p. 4) Hoshizaki stated 

AHRI shipment data could be skewed 

by models not sold in AHRI model class 

or manufacturers that do not participate 

with AHRI, but more information is 

needed to evaluate this issue. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 53 at p. 2) 

In response to AHRI’s comments 

about the known consistency of the 

AHRI data versus the less-well-known 

consistency of the Census Bureau data, 

DOE elected to use the AHRI historical 

data for the DOE Reference Case 

projections. As noted by Howe and 

Hoshizaki, the Census Bureau data 

could reflect broader coverage of all 

manufacturers. Thus, DOE configured 

the NIA model such that consistent 

scenarios can be modeled with either 

AHRI or Census Bureau data. With 

respect to the Manitowoc comments, 

DOE appreciates that the product mix 

represents a good snapshot. With 

respect to changing the mix, DOE 

requests additional data concerning 

trends, in the absence of which, DOE 

will by necessity hold the product mix 

static in the forecast. 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

The method for estimating the market 

share distribution of efficiency levels is 

presented in section IV.G.10, and a 

detailed description can be found in 

chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. To 

estimate efficiency trends in the 

standards cases, DOE uses a ‘‘roll-up’’ 

scenario in its standards rulemakings. 

Under the roll-up scenario, DOE 

assumes that equipment efficiencies in 

the base case that do not meet the 

standard level under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to the efficiency level 

that just meets the proposed standard 

level and equipment already being 

purchased at efficiencies at or above the 

standard level under consideration 

would be unaffected. Table IV.30 shows 

the shipment-weighted market shares by 

efficiency level in the base-case 

scenario. 

TABLE IV.30—SHIPMENT-WEIGHTED MARKET SHARES BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL, BASE CASE

Equipment class 

Market share by efficiency level 

Level 1 

(%) 

Level 2 

(%) 

Level 3 

(%) 

Level 4 

(%) 

Level 5 

(%) 

Level 6 

(%) 

Level 7 

(%) 

IMH–W–Small–B .......... 39.1 26.1 23.9 10.9 0.0 0.0 ........................

IMH–W–Med–B ............ 69.0 16.7 11.9 0.0 2.4 ........................ ........................

IMH–W–Large–B 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 71.4 0.0 4.8 23.8 ........................ ........................ ........................

IMH–W–Large–B–2 33.3 50.0 0.0 16.7 ........................ ........................ ........................

IMH–A–Small–B ........... 37.0 31.5 25.9 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 

IMH–A–Large–B 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 41.5 43.9 7.3 7.3 0.0 0.0 ........................

IMH–A–Large–B–2 33.3 26.7 26.7 13.3 ........................ ........................ ........................

RCU–Large–B 

RCU–Large–B–1 ... 42.9 39.3 8.9 0.0 8.9 ........................ ........................

RCU–Large–B–2 ... 27.3 45.5 9.1 0.0 18.2 ........................ ........................

SCU–W–Large–B ......... 28.6 0.0 14.3 0.0 42.9 0.0 14.3 

SCU–A–Small–B .......... 17.1 40.0 5.7 11.4 14.3 11.4 0.0 

SCU–A–Large–B .......... 28.6 35.7 0.0 7.1 21.4 7.1 0.0 

IMH–A–Small–C ........... 22.9 22.9 14.3 8.6 17.1 2.9 11.4 

IMH–A–Large–C .......... 35.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 

SCU–A–Small–C .......... 26.7 20.0 16.7 13.3 3.3 20.0 ........................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14900 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

54 In the past for preliminary analysis estimates, 

DOE typically did not perform analyses using 

NEMS. Rather, DOE relied on existing estimates 

considered appropriate for the analysis. The site-tosource values DOE considered most appropriate 

were those used in the prior 2009 commercial 

refrigeration equipment rulemaking final rule. 

55 Docket ID: EERE–2010–BT–NOA0028, 

comment by Kirk Lundblade. 

3. National Energy Savings 

For each year in the forecast period, 

DOE calculates the NES for each TSL by 

multiplying the stock of equipment 

affected by the energy conservation 

standards by the estimated per-unit 

annual energy savings. DOE typically 

considers the impact of a rebound effect, 

introduced in the energy use analysis, in 

its calculation of NES for a given 

product. A rebound effect occurs when 

users operate higher efficiency 

equipment more frequently and/or for 

longer durations, thus offsetting 

estimated energy savings. When a 

rebound effect occurs, it is generally 

because the users of the equipment 

perceive it as less costly to use the 

equipment and elect to use it more 

intensively. In the case of automatic 

commercial ice makers, users of the 

equipment include restaurant wait staff, 

hotel guests, cafeteria patrons, or 

hospital staff using ice in the treatment 

of patients. Users of automatic 

commercial ice makers tend to have no 

perception of the cost of the ice, and 

rather are using the ice to serve a 

specific need. Given this, DOE believes 

there is no potential for a rebound 

effect. For the preliminary analysis, 

DOE used a rebound factor of 1, or no 

effect, for automatic commercial ice 

makers. 

Inputs to the calculation of NES are 

annual unit energy consumption, 

shipments, equipment stock, and a siteto-source conversion factor. 

The annual unit energy consumption 

is the site energy consumed by an 

automatic commercial ice maker unit in 

a given year. Using the efficiency of 

units at each efficiency level and the 

baseline efficiency distribution, DOE 

determined annual forecasted shipmentweighted average equipment efficiencies 

that, in turn, enabled determination of 

shipment-weighted annual energy 

consumption values. 

The automatic commercial ice makers 

stock in a given year is the total number 

of automatic commercial ice makers 

shipped from earlier years (up to 12 

years earlier) that remain in use in that 

year. The NES spreadsheet model keeps 

track of the total units shipped each 

year. For purposes of the NES and NPV 

analyses in the NOPR analysis, DOE 

assumed that, based on an 8.5-year 

average equipment lifetimes, 

approximately 12 percent of the existing 

automatic commercial ice makers are 

retired and replaced in each year. DOE 

assumes that, for units shipped in 2047, 

any units still remaining at the end of 

2055 will be replaced. 

DOE uses a multiplicative factor 

called ‘‘site-to-source conversion factor’’ 

to convert site energy consumption (at 

the commercial building) into primary 

or source energy consumption (the 

energy at the energy generation site 

required to convert and deliver the site 

energy). These site-to-source conversion 

factors account for the energy used at 

power plants to generate electricity and 

losses in transmission and distribution, 

as well as for natural gas losses from 

pipeline leakage and energy used for 

pumping. For electricity, the conversion 

factors vary over time due to projected 

changes in generation sources (that is, 

the power plant types projected to 

provide electricity to the country). The 

factors that DOE developed are marginal 

values, which represent the response of 

the system to an incremental decrease in 

consumption associated with amended 

energy conservation standards. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE used 

annual site-to-source conversion factors 

based on the version of the National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) that 

corresponds to AEO2008.54 For today’s 

NOPR, DOE updated its conversion 

factors based on the U.S. energy sector 

modeling using the NEMS Building 

Technologies (NEMS–BT) version that 

corresponds to AEO2013 and which 

provides national energy forecasts 

through 2040. Within the results of 

NEMS–BT model runs performed by 

DOE, a site-to-source ratio for 

commercial refrigeration was 

developed. The site-to-source ratio was 

extended beyond 2040 by using growth 

rates calculated at 5-year intervals to 

extrapolate the trend to 2045, after 

which it was held constant through the 

end of the analysis period (30-years plus 

the life of equipment). 

DOE has historically presented NES 

in terms of primary energy savings. In 

response to the recommendations of a 

committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and FullFuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to 

Energy Efficiency Standards’’ appointed 

by the National Academy of Science, 

DOE announced its intention to use fullfuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use 

and greenhouse gas and other emissions 

in the national impact analyses and 

emissions analyses included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 

2011) While DOE stated in that notice 

that it intended to use the Greenhouse 

Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy 

Use in Transportation (GREET) model to 

conduct the analysis, it also said it 

would review alternative methods, 

including the use of NEMS. After 

evaluating both models and the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in the Federal 

Register in which DOE explained its 

determination that NEMS is a more 

appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and 

its intention to use NEMS for that 

purpose. 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). 

DOE received one comment, which was 

supportive of the use of NEMS for 

DOE’s FFC analysis.55

The approach used for today’s NOPR, 

and the FFC multipliers that were 

applied are described in appendix 10D 

of the NOPR TSD. NES results are 

presented in both primary and in terms 

of FFC savings; the savings by TSL are 

summarized in terms of FFC savings in 

section V.B.3. 

4. Net Present Value of Customer 

Benefit 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by customers of the 

automatic commercial ice makers are: 

(1) total annual installed cost; (2) total 

annual savings in operating costs; and 

(3) a discount factor. DOE calculated net 

national savings for each year as the 

difference in installation and operating 

costs between the base-case scenario 

and standards-case scenarios. DOE 

calculated operating cost savings over 

the life of each piece of equipment 

shipped in the forecast period. 

DOE multiplied monetary values in 

future years by the discount factor to 

determine the present value of costs and 

savings. DOE estimated national 

impacts with both a 3-percent and a 7- 

percent real discount rate as the average 

real rate of return on private investment 

in the U.S. economy. These discount 

rates are used in accordance with the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) guidance to Federal agencies on 

the development of regulatory analysis 

(OMB Circular A–4, September 17, 

2003), and section E, ‘‘Identifying and 

Measuring Benefits and Costs,’’ therein. 

DOE defined the present year as 2013 

for the NOPR analysis. The 7-percent 

real value is an estimate of the average 

before-tax rate of return to private 

capital in the U.S. economy. The 3- 

percent real value represents the 

‘‘societal rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present. 

As discussed in IV.G.1, DOE included 

a projection of price trends in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14901 

preliminary analysis NIA. For the 

NOPR, DOE reviewed and updated the 

analysis with the result that the 

projected reference case downward 

trend in prices is quite modest. For the 

NOPR, DOE also developed high and 

low case price trend projections, as 

discussed in a NOPR TSD appendix to 

chapter 10. 

I. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

commercial customers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable groups (i.e., 

subgroups) of customers, such as 

different types of businesses that may be 

disproportionately affected. Based on 

the data available to DOE, automatic 

commercial ice maker ownership in 

three building types represent over 70 

percent of the market: food sales, 

foodservice, and hotels. Based on data 

from the 2007 U.S. Economic Census 

and size standards set by the U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA), DOE 

determined that a majority of food sales, 

foodservice and lodging firms fall under 

the definition of small businesses. Small 

businesses typically face a higher cost of 

capital. In general, the lower the cost of 

electricity and higher the cost of capital, 

the more likely it is that an entity would 

be disadvantaged by the requirement to 

purchase higher efficiency equipment. 

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD presents the 

electricity price by business type and 

discount rates by building types, 

respectively, while chapter 11 discusses 

these topics as they specifically relate to 

small businesses. 

Comparing the foodservice, food 

sales, and lodging categories, 

foodservice faces the highest energy 

price, with food sales and lodging facing 

lower and nearly the same energy 

prices. Lodging faces the highest cost of 

capital. Foodservice faces a higher cost 

of capital than food sales. Given the cost 

of capital disparity, lodging was 

selected for LCC subgroup analysis. 

With foodservice facing a higher cost of 

capital, it was selected for subgroup 

analysis because the higher cost of 

capital should lead foodservice 

customers to value first cost more and 

future electricity savings less than 

would be the case for food sales 

customers. 

At the February 2012 preliminary 

analysis public meeting, DOE asked for 

input on the LCC subgroup analysis, 

and in particular, about appropriate 

groups for analysis. Manitowoc 

recommended that DOE look at small 

businesses, such as franchise operations 

and independent proprietor-run 

establishments. Manitowoc added that 

while there are institutional sectors with 

longer windows, there are others— 

‘‘mom and pops’’—that represent a large 

part of the market and which may be 

unfairly impacted by new standards 

because of their short payback windows 

and cash constraints. Manitowoc also 

indicated it is not just restaurants, it is 

hotels operated by franchisees and in 

some cases even hotel chains. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 42 at p. 169) 

DOE estimated the impact on the 

identified customer subgroups using the 

LCC spreadsheet model. The standard 

LCC and PBP analyses (described in 

section IV.G) include various types of 

businesses that use automatic 

commercial ice makers. For the LCC 

subgroup analysis, it was assumed that 

the subgroups analyzed do not have 

access to national purchasing accounts 

or two major capital markets thereby 

making the discount rates higher for 

these subgroups. Details of the data used 

for LCC subgroup analysis and results 

are presented in chapter 11 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers. The MIA has both 

quantitative and qualitative aspects and 

includes analyses of forecasted industry 

cash flows, the INPV, investments in 

research and development (R&D) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how amended energy 

conservation standards might affect 

manufacturing employment, capacity, 

and competition, as well as how 

standards contribute to overall 

regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 

serves to identify any disproportionate 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups, in 

particular, small businesses. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and investments in R&D and 

manufacturing capital required to 

produce compliant products. The key 

GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is 

the sum of industry annual cash flows 

over the analysis period, discounted 

using the industry weighted average 

cost of capital, and the impact to 

domestic manufacturing employment. 

The model estimates the impacts of 

more-stringent energy conservation 

standards on a given industry by 

comparing changes in INPV and 

domestic manufacturing employment 

between a base case and the various 

TSLs in the standards case. To capture 

the uncertainty relating to manufacturer 

pricing strategy following amended 

standards, the GRIM estimates a range of 

possible impacts under different 

markup scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on small business 

manufacturers. The complete MIA is 

outlined in chapter 12 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 

of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of 

the automatic commercial ice maker 

industry. This included a top-down cost 

analysis of automatic commercial ice 

maker manufacturers that DOE used to 

derive preliminary financial inputs for 

the GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, 

labor, overhead, and depreciation 

expenses; selling, general, and 

administrative expenses (SG&A); and 

R&D expenses). DOE also used public 

sources of information to further 

calibrate its initial characterization of 

the automatic commercial ice maker 

industry, including company Securities 

and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K 

filings, corporate annual reports, the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census, 

and reports from Dunn & Bradstreet. 

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash flow analysis 

to quantify the impacts of new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses several 

factors to determine a series of annual 

cash flows starting with the 

announcement of the standard and 

extending over a 30-year period 

following the effective date of the 

standard. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) create a need for increased 

investment; (2) raise production costs 

per unit; and (3) alter revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers in order to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14902 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

develop other key GRIM inputs, 

including product and capital 

conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with a representative crosssection of manufacturers. During these 

interviews, DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. See section IV.J.4 for 

a description of the key issues raised by 

manufacturers during the interviews. As 

part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated 

subgroups of manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by 

amended standards or that may not be 

accurately represented by the average 

cost assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash flow analysis. Such 

manufacturer subgroups may include 

small manufacturers, low volume 

manufacturers, niche players, and/or 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that largely differs from the 

industry average. 

DOE identified one subgroup, small 

manufacturers, for which average cost 

assumptions may not hold. DOE applied 

the small business size standards 

published by the SBA to determine 

whether a company is considered a 

small business. 65 FR 30840, May 15, 

2000, as amended at 67 FR 52602, Aug. 

13, 2002; 74 FR 46313, Sept. 9, 2009. To 

be categorized as a small business under 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing,’’ which includes 

commercial ice maker manufacturing, a 

manufacturer and its affiliates may 

employ a maximum of 750 employees. 

The 750-employee threshold includes 

all employees in a business’s parent 

company and any other subsidiaries. 

Based on this classification, DOE 

identified seven manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers that 

qualify as small businesses. The 

automatic commercial ice maker small 

manufacturer subgroup is discussed in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD and in 

section VI.B.1 of this rulemaking. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in industry cash flows resulting 

from new or amended energy 

conservation standards. The GRIM uses 

manufacturer costs, markups, 

shipments, and industry financial 

information to arrive at a series of basecase annual cash flows absent new or 

amended standards, beginning with the 

present year, 2013, and continuing 

through 2047. The GRIM then models 

changes in costs, investments, 

shipments, and manufacturer margins 

that may result from new or amended 

energy conservation standards and 

compares these results against those in 

the base-case forecast of annual cash 

flows. The primary quantitative output 

of the GRIM is the INPV, which DOE 

calculates by summing the stream of 

annual discounted cash flows over the 

full analysis period. For manufacturers 

of automatic commercial ice makers, 

DOE used a real discount rate of 9.2 

percent, the weighted average cost of 

capital as derived from industry 

financials. DOE then modified this 

figure based on feedback received 

during confidential interviews with 

manufacturers. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

base case and the various TSLs. The 

difference in INPV between the base 

case and a standards case represents the 

financial impact of the amended 

standard on manufacturers at that 

particular TSL. As discussed previously, 

DOE collected the necessary 

information to develop key GRIM inputs 

from a number of sources, including 

publicly available data and interviews 

with manufacturers (described in the 

next section). The GRIM results are 

shown in section V.B.2.a. Additional 

details about the GRIM can be found in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Key Inputs 

Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing a higher efficiency 

product is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing a baseline product 

due to the use of more complex and 

typically more costly components. The 

changes in the MPCs of the analyzed 

products can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry, 

making product cost data key GRIM 

inputs for DOE’s analysis. 

For each efficiency level of each 

equipment class that was directly 

analyzed, DOE used the MPCs 

developed in the engineering analysis, 

as described in section IV.A.2 and 

further detailed in chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD. For equipment classes that 

were indirectly analyzed, DOE used a 

composite of MPCs from similar 

equipment classes, substitute 

component costs, and design options to 

develop an MPC for each efficiency 

level. For equipment classes that had 

multiple units analyzed, DOE used a 

weighted average MPC based on the 

relative shipments of products at each 

efficiency level as the input for the 

GRIM. Additionally, DOE used 

information from its teardown analysis, 

described in section IV.D, to 

disaggregate the MPCs into material and 

labor costs. These cost breakdowns and 

equipment markups were validated with 

manufacturers during manufacturer 

interviews. 

Base-Case Shipments Forecast 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

forecasts and the distribution of 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual 

shipment forecasts derived from the 

shipments analysis from 2013, the base 

year, to 2047, the end of the analysis 

period. See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD 

for additional details. 

Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation 

standards will cause manufacturers to 

incur conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and product 

designs into compliance. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these conversion costs 

into two major groups: (1) product 

conversion costs and (2) capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs include investments in research, 

development, testing, marketing, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make product designs comply with new 

or amended energy conservation 

standards. Capital conversion costs 

include investments in property, plant, 

and equipment necessary to adapt or 

change existing production facilities 

such that new product designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

Stranded Assets 

If new or amended energy 

conservation standards require 

investment in new manufacturing 

capital, there also exists the possibility 

that they will render existing 

manufacturing capital obsolete. In the 

case that this obsolete manufacturing 

capital is not fully depreciated at the 

time new or amended standards go into 

effect, this would result in the stranding 

of these assets, and would necessitate 

the write-down of their residual undepreciated value. 

DOE used multiple sources of data to 

evaluate the level of product and capital 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14903 

conversion costs and stranded assets 

manufacturers would likely face to 

comply with new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE used 

manufacturer interviews to gather data 

on the level of investment anticipated at 

each proposed efficiency level and 

validated these assumptions using 

estimates of capital requirements 

derived from the product teardown 

analysis and engineering model 

described in section IV.D. These 

estimates were then aggregated and 

scaled using information gained from 

industry product databases to derive 

total industry estimates of product and 

capital conversion costs and to protect 

confidential information. 

In general, DOE assumes that all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year the final rule is 

published and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new or amended standards. The 

investment figures used in the GRIM 

can be found in section V.B.2.a of this 

notice. For additional information on 

the estimated product conversion and 

capital conversion costs, see chapter 12 

of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios 

Markup Scenarios 

As discussed in section IV.D, MSPs 

include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, material, 

overhead, and depreciation estimated in 

DOE’s MPCs) and all non-production 

costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), 

along with profit. To calculate the MSPs 

in the GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer 

markups to the MPCs estimated in the 

engineering analysis. Modifying these 

markups in the standards case yields 

different sets of impacts on 

manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE 

modeled two standards-case markup 

scenarios to represent the uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts on 

prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) A 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

markup scenario; and (2) a preservation 

of earnings before interest and taxes 

(EBIT) markup scenario. These 

scenarios lead to different markups 

values that, when applied to the MPCs, 

result in varying revenue and cash flow 

impacts. 

Under the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario, DOE 

applied a single, uniform ‘‘gross margin 

percentage’’ markup across all efficiency 

levels. As production costs increase 

with efficiency, this scenario implies 

that the absolute dollar markup will 

increase as well. Based on publicly 

available financial information for 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers and comments from 

manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed 

the industry average markup on 

production costs to be 1.25. Because this 

markup scenario assumes that 

manufacturers would be able to 

maintain their gross margin percentage 

as production costs increase in response 

to an amended energy conservation 

standard, it represents a lower bound of 

industry impacts (higher industry 

profitability) under an amended energy 

conservation standard. 

In the preservation of EBIT markup 

scenario, manufacturer markups are 

calibrated so that EBIT in the year after 

the compliance date of the amended 

energy conservation standard is the 

same as in the base case. Under this 

scenario, as the cost of production goes 

up, manufacturers are generally 

required to reduce the markups on their 

minimally compliant products to 

maintain a cost competitive offering. 

The implicit assumption behind this 

scenario is that the industry can only 

maintain EBIT in absolute dollars after 

compliance with the amended standard 

is required. Therefore, operating margin 

(as a percentage) shrinks in the 

standards cases. This markup scenario 

represents an upper bound of industry 

impacts (lower profitability) under an 

amended energy conservation standard. 

3. Discussion of Comments 

In response to the February 2012 

preliminary analysis public meeting, 

interested parties commented on the 

assumptions and results of the 

preliminary analysis TSD. Oral and 

written comments addressed several 

topics, including the impact to suppliers 

and the distribution channel, the 

importance of the ENERGYSTAR 

program, cumulative regulatory burden, 

and the impact to small manufacturers. 

a. Impact to Suppliers, Distributors, 

Dealers, and Contractors 

AHRI commented that DOE must 

perform analyses to assess the impact of 

the rule on component suppliers, 

distributors, dealers, and contractors. 

Where the MIA serves to assess the 

impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers; any 

impact on distributors, dealers, and 

contractors falls outside the scope of 

this analysis. 

Impacts on component suppliers 

might arise if manufacturers switched to 

more-efficient components, or if there 

was a substantial reduction of orders 

following new or amended standards. In 

public comments, manufacturers 

expressed that given their low 

production volumes, the automatic 

commercial ice maker manufacturing 

industry has little influence over 

component suppliers relative to other 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

industries. It follows that energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers would have little 

impact on component suppliers given 

their marginal contribution to overall 

commercial refrigeration component 

demand. 

b. ENERGY STAR 

Manitowoc commented that it is a 

very strong supporter of ENERGY STAR 

and that certification is very important 

to its customers because of the potential 

for utility rebates, Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED) 

certification, and other reasons. 

Manitowoc expressed concern that, if 

efficiency standards were raised to the 

max-tech level, there would be no more 

room for an ENERGY STAR category, 

which would be disruptive to the 

industry. 

DOE acknowledges the importance of 

the ENERGY STAR program and of 

understanding its interaction with 

energy efficiency standards. However, 

EPCA requires DOE to establish energy 

conservation standards at the maximum 

level that is technically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE has found, 

over time, with other products, as the 

standard level is increased, 

manufacturers’ research results in 

energy efficiency improvements that are 

regarded by the ENERGY STAR 

program. As such, any standard level 

below the max-tech level continues to 

leave room for ENERGY STAR rebate 

programs. 

c. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

AHRI commented on the cumulative 

regulatory burden associated with DOE 

efficiency standards. AHRI indicated 

that several legislative and regulatory 

activities should be considered, 

including legislation intended to reduce 

lead in drinking water and climate 

change bills that may be considered by 

Congress. (AHRI, No. 49 at p. 4) 

DOE takes into account the 

cumulative cost of multiple Federal 

regulations on manufacturers in the 

cumulative regulatory burden section of 

its analysis, which can be found in 

section V.B.2.e of this notice. DOE does 

not analyze the quantitative impacts of 

standards that have not yet been 

finalized. Similarly, DOE does not 

analyze the impacts of potential climate 

change bills because any impacts would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14904 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

56See www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reftrack/ 

reftrackrule.html. 

be speculative in the absence of final 

legislation. 

AHRI noted that California has 

regulations to limit GHGs and the 

measures established by the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) to reduce 

global warming will reduce the use of 

refrigerants such as HFCs. CARB is 

currently limiting the in-State use of 

refrigerants considered to have high 

global warming potential (GWP) in nonresidential refrigeration systems through 

its Refrigerant Management Program 

that became effective on January 1, 

2011.56 According to this new 

regulation, facilities with refrigeration 

systems that have a refrigerant capacity 

exceeding 50 lb must repair leaks within 

14 days of detection, maintain on-site 

records of all leak repairs, and keep 

receipts of all refrigerant purchases. The 

regulation applies to any person or 

company that installs, services, or 

disposes of appliances with high-GWP 

refrigerants. Refrigeration systems with 

a refrigerant capacity exceeding 50 lb 

typically belong to food retail operations 

with remote condensing racks that store 

refrigerant serving multiple commercial 

refrigeration and ice-making units 

within a business. However, automatic 

commercial ice makers in food retail 

establishments are usually installed and 

serviced by refrigeration contractors, not 

manufacturers. As a result, although 

these CARB regulations apply to 

refrigeration technicians and owners of 

facilities with refrigeration systems, 

they are unlikely to represent a 

regulatory burden for manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers. 

The discussion of cumulative 

regulatory burden on manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers is 

detailed further in chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

d. Small Manufacturers 

Howe observed that most highcapacity ice makers are made by small 

manufacturers, and consequently, 

setting higher efficiency standards for 

high-capacity equipment may be 

discriminatory against small 

manufacturers. (Howe, No. 51 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees that amended standards 

may have disproportionate impacts on 

smaller manufacturers. To make this 

determination, the DOE conducts an 

analysis of impacts on certain 

manufacturer subgroups including small 

businesses to assess if any impacts 

prove to be disproportionate. The 

results of this analysis are described 

further in section VI.B of this notice and 

detailed in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

To inform the MIA, DOE interviewed 

manufacturers with an estimated 

combined market share of 95 percent. 

The information gathered during these 

interviews enabled DOE to tailor the 

GRIM to reflect the unique financial 

characteristics of the automatic 

commercial ice maker industry. These 

confidential interviews provided 

information that DOE used to evaluate 

the impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on manufacturer 

cash flows, manufacturing capacities, 

and employment levels. 

During the manufacturer interviews, 

DOE asked manufacturers to describe 

their major concerns about this 

rulemaking. The following sections 

describe the most significant issues 

identified by manufacturers. DOE also 

includes additional concerns in chapter 

12 of the NOPR TSD. 

a. Price Sensitivity 

All manufacturers interviewed 

characterized the market for automatic 

commercial ice makers as extremely 

price sensitive. They hold the position 

that new and amended standards will 

result in decreased profit margins as 

they will be unable to pass through 

costs relating to standards compliance. 

They noted that this will be particularly 

troublesome for lower capacity 

equipment classes (Small SCU and 

Small IMH), which are sold primarily to 

smaller restaurants and food service 

establishments with limited access to 

capital. Additionally, they noted that 

distributors tend to be individual 

proprietors or small franchises with 

limited opportunities to extend 

financing to their customers. 

Manufacturers went on to report that 

while energy efficiency is important, it 

is not a feature for which customers 

would pay a premium. 

One manufacturer also noted that 

replacement parts represented 70 

percent of sales, and while sales of parts 

had increased since 2009, unit sales had 

decreased, indicating that customers 

were holding onto units longer. The 

ability to extend the life of a unit 

through repairs and refurbishment 

presents a further economic challenge to 

manufacturers facing energy efficiency 

standards. 

b. Enforcement 

Manufacturers characterized the 

automatic commercial ice maker market 

as a niche market with a high degree of 

competition. The recent entrance of 

foreign manufacturers has led to a 

further tightening of price competition 

due to the lower labor costs of these 

foreign manufacturers. Several domestic 

manufacturers expressed concern about 

the enforcement of an amended energy 

efficiency standard for automatic 

commercial ice makers produced 

overseas. Manufacturers believe that 

insufficient enforcement will lead to 

market distortions, as companies that 

make the necessary investments to meet 

amended standards would be at a 

distinct pricing disadvantage to 

unscrupulous competitors, often times 

foreign manufacturers, that do not fully 

comply. The manufacturers requested 

that DOE take the enforcement action 

necessary to maintain a level playing 

field and to eliminate non-compliant 

products from the market. 

c. Reliability Impacts 

Some manufacturers expressed 

concerns that future energy 

conservation standards would have an 

adverse impact on the reliability of their 

products. One manufacturer stated that 

any time new components or designs 

are introduced, that there is an increase 

in service calls and the mean time 

between failures drops as they work out 

the issues. This manufacturer went on 

to emphasize that reliability is the most 

important feature of their products. 

d. Impact on Innovation 

Several manufacturers expressed 

concerns over the imbalance of internal 

engineering resources brought about by 

the regular revision and introduction of 

energy conservation standards. As 

energy use has become increasingly 

regulated, manufacturers have had to 

shift engineering and support resources 

away from other initiatives, adversely 

affecting product innovation outside of 

energy efficiency. One manufacturer 

reported that a previous round of 

standards required nearly all of the 

company’s engineering resources for 

between 1 and 2 years. Where the R&D 

effort required for compliance is 

intermittent, innovation is impacted 

without adding to overall employment. 

DOE requests additional comment on 

the intermittency of R&D efforts directed 

at compliance with energy conservation 

standards and its impact on other 

research and development resources. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimates the reduction in power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

from potential energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers. In addition, DOE estimates 

emissions impacts in production 

activities (extracting, processing, and 

transporting fuels) that provide the 

energy inputs to power plants. These are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14905 

referred to as ‘‘upstream’’ emissions. 

Together, these emissions account for 

the full-fuel-cycle (FFC). In accordance 

with DOE’s FFC Statement of Policy (76 

FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011)), as amended 

at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012), the FFC 

analysis includes impacts on emissions 

of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide 

(N2O), both of which are recognized as 

GHGs. 

DOE conducted the emissions 

analysis using emissions factors that 

were derived from data in AEO2013, 

supplemented by data from other 

sources. DOE developed separate 

emissions factors for power sector 

emissions and upstream emissions. The 

method that DOE used to derive 

emissions factors is described in chapter 

13 of the NOPR TSD. 

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. 

For CH4 and N2O, DOE also presents 

results in terms of units of carbon 

dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are 

converted to CO2eq by multiplying the 

physical units by the gas’ global 

warming potential (GWP) over a 100 

year time horizon. Based on the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, DOE used GWP values of 25 for 

CH4 and 298 for N2O. 

EIA prepares the AEO using NEMS. 

Each annual version of NEMS 

incorporates the projected impacts of 

existing air quality regulations on 

emissions. AEO2013 generally 

represents current legislation and 

environmental regulations, including 

recent government actions, for which 

implementing regulations were 

available as of December 31, 2012. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern States and DC were also limited 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), 

which created an allowance-based 

trading program that operates along 

with the Title IV program. CAIR was 

remanded to U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit but it remained in 

effect. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). On July 6, 2011 EPA issued a 

replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 

2012, the DC Circuit issued a decision 

to vacate CSAPR. See EME Homer City 

Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 

(D.C. Cir. 2012). The court ordered EPA 

to continue administering CAIR. The 

AEO2013 emissions factors used for 

today’s NOPR assume that CAIR 

remains a binding regulation through 

2040. 

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, any excess 

SO2 emissions allowances resulting 

from the lower electricity demand 

caused by the adoption of an efficiency 

standard could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by 

any regulated EGU. In past rulemakings, 

DOE recognized that there was 

uncertainty about the effects of 

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that negligible 

reductions in power sector SO2

emissions would occur as a result of 

standards. 

Beginning in 2015, however, SO2

emissions will fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). In the final MATS rule, 

EPA established a standard for hydrogen 

chloride as a surrogate for acid gas 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also 

established a standard for SO2 (a nonHAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as 

a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. AEO2013 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants 

must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed by 2015. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS 

shows a reduction in SO2 emissions 

when electricity demand decreases (e.g., 

as a result of energy efficiency 

standards). Emissions will be far below 

the cap established by CAIR, so it is 

unlikely that excess SO2 emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand would be needed or 

used to permit offsetting increases in 

SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. 

Therefore, DOE believes that efficiency 

standards will reduce SO2 emissions in 

2015 and beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia. Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those States covered by CAIR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions. 

However, standards would be expected 

to reduce NOX emissions in the States 

not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimated NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in 

today’s NOPR for these States. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE 

estimated mercury emissions reduction 

using emissions factors based on 

AEO2013, which incorporates the 

MATS. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that 

are expected to result from each of the 

TSLs considered. In order to make this 

calculation similar to the calculation of 

the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE 

considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of 

equipment shipped in the forecast 

period for each TSL. This section 

summarizes the basis for the monetary 

values used for each of these emissions 

and presents the values considered in 

this rulemaking. 

For today’s NOPR, DOE is relying on 

a set of values for the social cost of 

carbon (SCC) that was developed by an 

interagency process. A summary of the 

basis for these values is provided below, 

and a more detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided as an 

appendix to chapter 14 of the TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. A domestic SCC 

value is meant to reflect the value of 

damages in the United States resulting 

from a unit change in carbon dioxide 

emissions, while a global SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages 

worldwide. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14906 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

57National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC (2009). 

58See Average Fuel Economy Standards 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 

74 FR 14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90 (Oct. 2008) 

(Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). 

59See Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) (Proposed 

Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015 at 3–58 (June 2008) (Available at: 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy) 

Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 

12866, agencies must, to the extent 

permitted by law, ‘‘assess both the costs 

and the benefits of the intended 

regulation and, recognizing that some 

costs and benefits are difficult to 

quantify, propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that the benefits of the intended 

regulation justify its costs.’’ The purpose 

of the SCC estimates presented here is 

to allow agencies to incorporate the 

monetized social benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses 

of regulatory actions that have small, or 

‘‘marginal,’’ impacts on cumulative 

global emissions. The estimates are 

presented with an acknowledgement of 

the many uncertainties involved and 

with a clear understanding that they 

should be updated over time to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed these SCC estimates, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this 

process was to develop a range of SCC 

values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing 

scientific and economic literatures. In 

this way, key uncertainties and model 

differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking 

process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) emissions, the analyst 

faces a number of serious challenges. A 

report from the National Research 

Council 57 points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about (1) future emissions of greenhouse 

gases, (2) the effects of past and future 

emissions on the climate system, (3) the 

impact of changes in climate on the 

physical and biological environment, 

and (4) the translation of these 

environmental impacts into economic 

damages. As a result, any effort to 

quantify and monetize the harms 

associated with climate change will 

raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. Most Federal 

regulatory actions can be expected to 

have marginal impacts on global 

emissions. For such policies, the agency 

can estimate the benefits from reduced 

(or costs from increased) emissions in 

any future year by multiplying the 

change in emissions in that year by the 

SCC value appropriate for that year. The 

net present value of the benefits can 

then be calculated by multiplying each 

of these future benefits by an 

appropriate discount factor and 

summing across all affected years. This 

approach assumes that the marginal 

damages from increased emissions are 

constant for small departures from the 

baseline emissions path, an 

approximation that is reasonable for 

policies that have effects on emissions 

that are small relative to cumulative 

global carbon dioxide emissions. For 

policies that have a large (non-marginal) 

impact on global cumulative emissions, 

there is a separate question of whether 

the SCC is an appropriate tool for 

calculating the benefits of reduced 

emissions. This concern is not 

applicable to this notice, however. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and consider public comments as part of 

the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

Economic analyses for Federal 

regulations have used a wide range of 

values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. The model year 2011 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy final 

rule, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used both a 

‘‘domestic’’ SCC value of $2 per metric 

ton of CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of 

$33 per metric ton of CO2 for 2007 

emission reductions (in 2007$), 

increasing both values at 2.4 percent per 

year. DOT also included a sensitivity 

analysis at $80 per metric ton of CO2.58

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

metric ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 

emission reductions (with a range of $0– 

$14 for sensitivity analysis), also 

increasing at 2.4 percent per year.59 A 

regulation for packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps finalized by DOE in 2008 

used a domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 

per metric ton CO2 for 2007 emission 

reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 58772, 

58814 (Oct. 7, 2008) In addition, EPA’s 

2008 Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Regulating Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act 

identified what it described as ‘‘very 

preliminary’’ SCC estimates subject to 

revision. 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). 

EPA’s global mean values were $68 and 

$40 per metric ton CO2 for discount 

rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 

percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 

emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible 

method, specifically designed for the 

rulemaking process, to quantify avoided 

climate change damages from reduced 

CO2 emissions. The interagency group 

did not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of 

CO2. These interim values represented 

the first sustained interagency effort 

within the U.S. government to develop 

an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. 

The results of this preliminary effort 

were presented in several proposed and 

final rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates. 

Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14907 

60Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government, February 2010. 

<www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/

inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-forRIA.pdf.> 

61Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. <http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf> 

the technical literature in relevant 

fields. The interagency group relied on 

three integrated assessment models 

commonly used to estimate the SCC: the 

FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These 

models are frequently cited in the peerreviewed literature, and were used in 

the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Each model was given equal 

weight in the SCC values that were 

developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three sets of values are based 

on the average SCC from the three 

integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. 

The fourth set, which represents the 

95th percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, is included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. The values grow in 

real terms over time. Additionally, the 

interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic effects, 

although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV.31 

presents the values in the 2010 

interagency group report,60 which is 

reproduced in appendix 14–A of the 

NOPR TSD. 

TABLE IV.31—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[2007 dollars per metric ton] 

Discount rate 

(%) 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

The SCC values used for today’s 

notice were generated using the most 

recent versions of the three integrated 

assessment models that have been 

published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.61 Table IV.32 shows the 

updated sets of SCC estimates in five 

year increments from 2010 to 2050. The 

full set of annual SCC estimates between 

2010 and 2050 is reported in appendix 

14–B of the NOPR TSD. The central 

value that emerges is the average SCC 

across models at the 3-percent discount 

rate. However, for purposes of capturing 

the uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, the interagency group 

emphasizes the importance of including 

all four sets of SCC values. 

TABLE IV.32—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050 

[2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

(%) 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 11 32 51 89 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 11 37 57 109 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 12 43 64 128 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 14 47 69 143 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 16 52 75 159 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 19 56 80 175 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 21 61 86 191 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14908 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

62For additional information, refer to U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on 

the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities, Washington, DC. 

63For more information on NEMS, refer to the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration documentation. A useful summary 

is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2003, DOE/EIA–0581 (2003), March, 2003. 

64 DOE/EIA approves use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ to 

describe only an official version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

this analysis entails some minor code modifications 

and the model is run under various policy scenarios 

that are variations on DOE/EIA assumptions, DOE 

refers to it by the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ (‘‘BT’’ is DOE’s 

Building Technologies Program, under whose aegis 

this work has been performed). 

65See Bureau of Economic Analysis, ‘‘Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II),’’ U.S. 

Department of Commerce (1992). 

TABLE IV.32—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050—Continued 

[2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

(%) 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 26 71 97 220 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of concerns and 

problems that should be addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the Federal agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

The interagency group intends to 

periodically review and reconsider 

those estimates to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report 

adjusted to 2012$ using the Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP) price deflator. 

For each of the four case of SCC values, 

the values for emissions in 2015 were 

$11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117.0 per 

metric ton avoided (values expressed in 

2012$). DOE derived values after 2050 

using the relevant growth rates for the 

2040–2050 period in the interagency 

update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. To calculate a present value 

of the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SCC values in each case. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

As noted above, DOE has taken into 

account how new or amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

NOX emissions in those 22 States not 

affected by emission caps. DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX

emissions reductions resulting from 

each of the TSLs considered for today’s 

NOPR based on estimates found in the 

relevant scientific literature. Estimates 

of monetary value for reducing NOX

from stationary sources range from $468 

to $4,809 per ton (2012$).62 DOE 

calculated monetary benefits using a 

medium value for NOX emissions of 

$2,639 per short ton (in 2012$), and real 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. It has not 

included monetization in the current 

analysis. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

In the utility impact analysis, DOE 

analyzes the changes in electric 

installed capacity and generation that 

result for each TSL. The utility impact 

analysis uses a variant of NEMS,63

which is a public domain, multisectored, partial equilibrium model of 

the U.S. energy sector. DOE uses a 

variant of this model, referred to as 

NEMS–BT,64 to account for selected 

utility impacts of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE’s 

analysis consists of a comparison 

between model results for the most 

recent AEO Reference Case and for cases 

in which energy use is decremented to 

reflect the impact of potential standards. 

The energy savings inputs associated 

with each TSL come from the NIA. 

Chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD describes 

the utility impact analysis. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

Employment impacts include direct 

and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are any changes in 

the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the products subject to 

standards; the MIA addresses those 

impacts. Indirect employment impacts 

are changes in national employment 

that occur due to the shift in 

expenditures and capital investment 

caused by the purchase and operation of 

more-efficient appliances. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the jobs created or eliminated 

in the national economy due to: (1) 

reduced spending by end users on 

energy; (2) reduced spending on new 

energy supply by the utility industry; (3) 

increased customer spending on the 

purchase of new products; and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.65 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14909 

66Scott, M.J., O.V. Livingston, P.J. Balducci, J.M. 

Roop, and R.W. Schultz. ImSET 3.1: Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies. 2009. Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. 

Report No. PNNL–18412. <www.pnl.gov/main/

publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL18412.pdf> 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing customer utility bills. 

Because reduced customer expenditures 

for energy likely lead to increased 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy, the general effect of efficiency 

standards is to shift economic activity 

from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., 

the utility sector) to more laborintensive sectors (e.g., the retail and 

service sectors). Thus, based on the BLS 

data alone, DOE believes net national 

employment may increase because of 

shifts in economic activity resulting 

from amended energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers. 

For the amended standard levels 

considered in today’s NOPR, DOE 

estimated indirect national employment 

impacts using an input/output model of 

the U.S. economy called Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies version 

3.1.1 (ImSET).66 ImSET is a specialpurpose version of the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark 

National Input-Output’’ (I–O) model, 

which was designed to estimate the 

national employment and income 

effects of energy-saving technologies. 

The ImSET software includes a 

computer-based I–O model having 

structural coefficients that characterize 

economic flows among the 187 sectors. 

ImSET’s national economic I–O 

structure is based on a 2002 U.S. 

benchmark table, specially aggregated to 

the 187 sectors most relevant to 

industrial, commercial, and residential 

building energy use. DOE notes that 

ImSET is not a general equilibrium 

forecasting model, and understands the 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run. For the NOPR, DOE 

used ImSET only to estimate short-term 

(through 2022) employment impacts. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

At the February 2012 preliminary 

analysis public meeting, NPCC inquired 

whether the money saved from low 

water consumption will be moved into 

the employment impact analysis along 

with the money saved from lower 

energy consumption. (NPCC, No. 42 at 

pp. 164 and 165) In response, DOE notes 

that all changes in operations and 

maintenance costs, including water 

costs, are captured in the employment 

analysis. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis and its results, see 

chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD and section 

V.B.3.d of this notice. 

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

DOE prepared a regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) for this rulemaking, 

which is described in chapter 17 of the 

NOPR TSD. The RIA is subject to review 

by OIRA in the OMB. The RIA consists 

of (1) a statement of the problem 

addressed by this regulation and the 

mandate for Government action; (2) a 

description and analysis of policy 

alternatives to this regulation; (3) a 

qualitative review of the potential 

impacts of the alternatives; and (4) the 

national economic impacts of the 

proposed standard. 

The RIA assesses the effects of 

feasible policy alternatives to amended 

automatic commercial ice makers 

standards and provides a comparison of 

the impacts of the alternatives. DOE 

evaluated the alternatives in terms of 

their ability to achieve significant 

energy savings at reasonable cost, and 

compared them to the effectiveness of 

the proposed rule. 

DOE identified the following major 

policy alternatives for achieving 

increased automatic commercial ice 

makers efficiency: 

• No new regulatory action 

• commercial customer tax credits 

• commercial customer rebates 

• voluntary energy efficiency targets 

• bulk government purchases 

• early replacement 

DOE qualitatively evaluated each 

alternative’s ability to achieve 

significant energy savings at reasonable 

cost and compared it to the effectiveness 

of the proposed rule. DOE assumed that 

each alternative policy would induce 

commercial customers to voluntarily 

purchase at least some higher efficiency 

equipment at any of the TSLs. In 

contrast to a standard at one of the 

TSLs, the adoption rate of the 

alternative non-regulatory policy cases 

may not be 100 percent, which would 

result in lower energy savings than a 

standard. The following paragraphs 

discuss each policy alternative. (See 

chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD for further 

details.) 

No new regulatory action: The case in 

which no regulatory action is taken for 

automatic commercial ice makers 

constitutes the base-case (or no action) 

scenario. By definition, no new 

regulatory action yields zero energy 

savings and an NPV of zero dollars. 

Commercial customer tax credits: 

Customer tax credits are considered a 

viable non-regulatory market 

transformation program. From a 

customer perspective, the most 

important difference between rebate and 

tax credit programs is that a rebate can 

be obtained quickly, whereas receipt of 

tax credits is delayed until income taxes 

are filed or a tax refund is provided by 

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 

From a societal perspective, tax credits 

(like rebates) do not change the installed 

cost of the equipment, but rather 

transfer a portion of the cost from the 

customer to taxpayers as a whole. DOE, 

therefore, assumed that equipment costs 

in the customer tax credits scenario 

were identical to the NIA base case. The 

change in the NES and NPV is a result 

of the change in the efficiency 

distributions that results from lowering 

the prices of higher efficiency 

equipment. 

Commercial customer rebates: 

Customer rebates cover a portion of the 

difference in incremental product price 

between products meeting baseline 

efficacy levels and those meeting higher 

efficiency levels, resulting in a higher 

percentage of customers purchasing 

more-efficacious models and decreased 

aggregated energy use compared to the 

base case. Although the rebate program 

reduces the total installed cost to the 

customer, it is financed by tax revenues. 

Therefore, from a societal perspective, 

the installed cost at any efficiency level 

does not change with the rebate 

program; rather, part of the cost is 

transferred from the customer to 

taxpayers as a whole. Consequently, 

DOE assumed that equipment costs in 

the rebates scenario were identical to 

the NIA base case. The change in the 

NES and NPV is a result of the change 

in the efficiency distributions that 

results as a consequence of lowering the 

prices of higher efficiency equipment. 

Voluntary energy efficiency targets: 

While it is possible that voluntary 

programs for equipment would be 

effective, DOE lacks a quantitative basis 

to determine how effective such a 

program might be. As noted previously, 

broader economic and social 

considerations are in play than simple 

economic return to the equipment 

purchaser. DOE lacks the data necessary 

to quantitatively project the degree to 

which voluntary programs for more 

expensive, higher efficiency equipment 

would modify the market. 

Bulk government purchases and early 

replacement incentive programs: DOE 

also considered, but did not analyze, the 

potential of bulk government purchases 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14910 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

and early replacement incentive 

programs as alternatives to the proposed 

standards. Bulk government purchases 

would have a very limited impact on 

improving the overall market efficiency 

of automatic commercial ice makers 

because they would be a small part of 

the total equipment sold in the market. 

In the case of replacement incentives, 

several policy options exist to promote 

early replacement, including a direct 

national program of customer 

incentives, incentives paid to utilities to 

promote an early replacement program, 

market promotions through equipment 

manufacturers, and replacement of 

government-owned equipment. In 

considering early replacements, DOE 

estimates that the energy savings 

realized through a one-time early 

replacement of existing stock equipment 

does not result in energy savings 

commensurate to the cost to administer 

the program. Consequently, DOE did not 

analyze this option in detail. 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

1. Trial Standard Level Formulation 

Process and Criteria 

DOE selected between four and seven 

efficiency levels for all equipment 

classes for analysis. For all equipment 

classes, the first efficiency level is the 

baseline efficiency level. Based on the 

results of the LCC analysis and NIA, 

DOE selected five TSLs above the 

baseline level for each equipment class 

for the NOPR stage of this rulemaking. 

Table V.1 shows the mapping between 

TSLs and efficiency levels. 

TSL 5 was selected at the max-tech 

level for all equipment classes. 

TSL 4 was chosen as an intermediate 

level between the max-tech level and 

the maximum customer NPV level, 

subject to the requirement that the TSL 

4 NPV must be positive. ‘‘Customer 

NPV’’ is the NPV of future savings 

obtained from the NIA. It provides a 

measure of the benefits only to the 

customers of the automatic commercial 

ice makers, and does not account for the 

net benefits to the Nation. The net 

benefits to the Nation also include 

monetized values of emissions 

reductions in addition to the customer 

NPV. Where a sufficient number of 

efficiency levels allow it, TSL 4 is set at 

least one level below max-tech and one 

level above the efficiency level with the 

highest NPV. In one case, the TSL 4 

efficiency level is the maximum NPV 

level because the next higher level had 

a negative NPV. In cases where the 

maximum NPV efficiency level is the 

penultimate efficiency level and the 

max-tech level showed a positive NPV 

the TSL 4 efficiency level is also the 

max-tech level. 

TSL 3 was chosen to represent the 

group of efficiency levels with the 

highest customer NPV at a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

TSL 2 was selected to provide 

intermediate efficiency levels that fill 

the gap between the TSLs 1 and 3. Note 

that with the number of efficiency levels 

available for each equipment class, there 

is often overlap between TSL levels. 

Thus, TSL 2 includes levels that overlap 

with both TSLs 1 and 3. The intent of 

TSL 2 is to provide an intermediate 

level to preclude big jumps in efficiency 

between TSLs 1 and 3. 

TSL 1 was set equal to efficiency level 

2. In the analysis, efficiency level 2 was 

set equivalent to ENERGY STAR for 

products rated by ENERGY STAR, and 

an equivalent efficiency improvement 

for other equipment classes. 

TABLE V.1—MAPPING BETWEEN TSLS AND EFFICIENCY LEVELS * 

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 6 

IMH–W–Med–B ................................... Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 5 

IMH–W–Large–B†

IMH–W–Large–B1 ....................... Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ....................... Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 

IMH–A–Small–B .................................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 6 ................. Level 7 

IMH–A–Large–B†

IMH–A–Large–B1 ........................ Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 6 ................. Level 6 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ........................ Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 4 

RCU–Large–B†

RCU–Large–B1 ............................ Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 5 

RCU–Large–B2 ............................ Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 5 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................ Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 6 ................. Level 7 

SCU–A–Small–B ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 6 ................. Level 7 ................. Level 7 

SCU–A–Large–B ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 6 ................. Level 7 ................. Level 7 

IMH–A–Small–C .................................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 7 

IMH–A–Large–C ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 6 ................. Level 7 

SCU–A–Small–C ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 6 

* For three large equipment classes—IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B and RCU–Large–B—because the harvest capacity range is so wide 

DOE analyzed two typical models to ensure models at the low and the higher portions of the applicable range were accurately modeled. The 

smaller of the two is noted as B1 and the larger as B2. † DOE analyzed impacts for the B1 and B2 typical units and aggregated impacts to the equipment class level. 

Table V.2 illustrates the efficiency 

improvements incorporated in all 

efficiency levels. 

TABLE V.2—PERCENTAGE EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT FROM BASELINE BY TSL * 

Equipment class TSL 1 

(%) 

TSL 2 

(%) 

TSL 3 

(%) 

TSL 4 

(%) 

TSL 5 

(%) 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 10.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 29.4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14911 

TABLE V.2—PERCENTAGE EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT FROM BASELINE BY TSL *—Continued 

Equipment class TSL 1 

(%) 

TSL 2 

(%) 

TSL 3 

(%) 

TSL 4 

(%) 

TSL 5 

(%) 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 10.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 21.3 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................................................................... 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 16.4 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ............................................................................ 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 16.7 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ............................................................................ 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.5 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 10.0 15.0 25.0 30.0 31.3 

IMH–A–Large–B ...................................................................................... 10.0 14.2 23.4 28.0 28.0 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ............................................................................. 10.0 15.0 25.0 29.4 29.4 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ............................................................................. 10.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 

RCU–Large–B .......................................................................................... 9.0 9.0 15.0 20.0 20.6 

RCU–Large–B1 ................................................................................. 9.0 9.0 15.0 20.0 20.6 

RCU–Large–B2 ................................................................................. 9.0 9.0 15.0 20.0 20.5 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 7.0 15.0 25.0 30.0 30.2 

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 7.0 20.0 30.0 39.3 39.3 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 7.0 20.0 30.0 34.9 34.9 

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 31.0 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 10.0 15.0 25.0 30.0 30.2 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 7.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 28.2 

* Percentage improvements for IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B and RCU–Large–B are a weighted average of the B1 and B2 units, using 

weights provided in TSD chapter 7. 

Table V.3 illustrates the design 

options associated with each TSL level, 

for each analyzed product class. The 

design options are discussed in Section 

IV.D.3 of today’s NOPR, and in Chapter 

5 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.3—DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ANALYZED PRODUCTS CLASSES AT EACH TSL 

Equipment class Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Design Options for Each TSL (options are cumulative—TSL5 includes all preceding options) 

IMH–W–Small–B ................. No BW Fill, PSC 

PM.

Increase Comp 

EER, Increase 

Cond.

Same as previous.Increase Cond, 

BW Fill.

BW Fill, Increase 

Evap, ECM 

PM.

ECM PM, 

DWHX. 

IMH–W–Med–B ................... BW Fill, PSC 

PM.

Increase Comp 

EER.

Same as previous.Increase Comp 

EER, Increase 

Cond.

Increase Comp 

EER, ECM 

PM, DWHX.

DWHX. 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ............... BW Fill, PSC 

PM.

Increase Comp 

EER, Increase 

Cond.

Same as previous.Same as previous.Increase Cond, 

ECM PM, 

DWHX.

DWHX. 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ............... BW Fill, PSC 

PM.

Increase Comp 

EER, Increase 

Cond.

Same as previous.Same as previous.ECM PM, 

DWHX.

DWHX. 

IMH–A–Small–B .................. BW Fill, PSC 

PM, SPM FM.

Increase Comp 

EER, Increase 

Cond, Increase Evap.

Increase Evap ... Increase Evap, 

PSC FM, ECM 

FM, Increase 

Cond.

Increase Cond, 

ECM PM, 

DWHX.

DWHX. 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................ BW Fill, PSC 

PM, SPM FM.

PSC FM, Comp 

EER.

Increase Comp 

EER.

Increase Comp 

EER, BW Fill, 

ECM PM, 

ECM FM, Increase Cond.

Increase Cond, 

DWHX.

DWHX. 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................ BW Fill, PSC 

PM, SPM FM.

Increase Comp 

EER, PSC FM.

Same as previous.PSC FM, Increase Cond.ECM FM, ECM 

PM, DWHX.

ECM FM, ECM 

PM, DWHX. 

RCU–Large–B1 ................... BW Fill, PSC 

PM, PSC FM.

Increase Comp 

EER.

Same as previous.Increase Comp 

EER, Increase 

Cond, ECM 

FM.

ECM FM, Increase Cond, 

ECM PM, 

DWHX.

DWHX. 

RCU–Large–B2 ................... BW Fill, PSC 

PM, PSC FM.

Increase Comp 

EER, Increase 

Cond.

Same as previous.ECM PM Increase Cond.Increase Cond, 

ECM FM, 

DWHX.

DWHX. 

SCU–W–Large–B ................ No BW Fill, PSC 

PM.

BW Fill .............. BW Fill, Increase 

Comp EER, 

Increase Cond.

Increase Cond, 

ECM PM.

ECM PM, 

DWHX.

DWHX. 

SCU–A–Small–B ................. No BW Fill, PSC 

PM, SPM FM.

PSC FM, Increase Cond.Increase Cond, 

Increase 

Comp EER.

Increase Comp 

EER, BW Fill.

BW Fill, ECM 

PM, ECM FM, 

DWHX.

Same as previous. 

SCU–A–Large–B ................. No BW Fill, PSC 

PM, SPM FM.

Increase Comp 

EER.

Increase Comp 

EER, Increase 

Cond, BW Fill.

BW Fill, PSC 

FM, ECM FM, 

ECM PM.

ECM PM, 

DWHX.

Same as previous. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14912 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.3—DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ANALYZED PRODUCTS CLASSES AT EACH TSL—Continued 

Equipment class Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–A–Small–C .................. PSC AM, SPM 

FM.

PSC FM, Increase Comp 

EER.

PSC FM, Increase Comp 

EER.

Increase Comp 

EER, Increase 

Cond, ECM 

FM.

ECM FM, ECM 

AM.

ECM AM. 

IMH–A–Large–C .................. PSC AM, SPM 

FM.

Increase Cond, 

Increase 

Comp EER.

Increase Comp 

EER.

Increase Comp 

EER, PSC 

FM, ECM FM.

ECM FM, ECM 

AM.

ECM AM. 

SCU–A–Small–C ................. PSC AM, SPM 

FM.

Increase Cond .. Increase Cond, 

Increase 

Comp EER.

Increase Comp 

EER, PSC FM.

Same as previous.ECM FM, ECM 

AM. 

SPM = Shaded Pole Motor 

PSC = Permanent Split Capacitor Motor 

ECM = Electronically Commutated Motor 

FM = Fan Motor (Air-Cooled Units) 

PM = Pump Motor (Batch Units) 

AM = Auger Motor (Continuous Units) 

BW Fill = Batch Water Fill Option Included 

Increase Cond = Increase in Condenser Size 

Increase Evap = Increase in Evaporator Size 

Increase Comp EER = Increase in Compressor EER 

DWHX = Addition of Drainwater Heat Exchanger 

DOE requests comment and data 

related to the required equipment size 

increases associated with the design 

options at each TSL levels. Chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD contains full 

descriptions of the design options and 

DOE’s analyses for the equipment size 

increase associated with the design 

options selected. DOE also requests 

comments and data on the efficiency 

gains associated with each set of design 

options. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD 

contains DOE’s analyses of the 

efficiency gains for each design option 

considered. Finally, DOE requests 

comment and data on any utility 

impacts associated with each set of 

design options, such as potential icestyle changes. 

2. Trial Standard Level Equations 

Table V.4 and Table V.5 translate the 

TSLs into potential standards. In Table 

V.4, the TSLs are translated into energy 

consumption standards for the directly 

analyzed (primary) equipment classes. 

Table V.5. provides the equipment class 

mapping showing which of the directly 

analyzed standards’ results were used to 

extend standards to secondary classes. 

Table V.6 extends the standards to the 

remaining (secondary) equipment 

classes that have not been analyzed 

directly. 

TABLE V.4—POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION STANDARDS FOR DIRECTLY ANALYZED CLASSES

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ........................ 7.01–0.0050H ........ 6.62–0.0047H ........ 5.84–0.0041H ........ 5.84–0.0041H ........ 5.49–0.0039H. 

IMH–W–Med–B .......................... 5.04–0.0010H ........ 4.65–0.0007H ........ 3.88–0.0002H ........ 3.98–0.0004H ........ 3.63–0.0002H. 

IMH–W–Large–B ........................ 3.6 .......................... 3.6 .......................... 3.6 .......................... 3.4 .......................... 3.3. 

IMH–A–Small–B ......................... 9.23–0.0077H ........ 8.74–0.0073H ........ 7.70–0.0065H ........ 7.18–0.0060H ........ 7.05–0.0059H. 

IMH–A–Large–B ......................... 6.20–0.0010H ........ 5.86–0.0009H ........ 5.17–0.0008H ........ 4.82–0.0008H ........ 4.74–0.0008H. 

IMH–A–Extended–B ................... (>= 2,500 and 

<4,000) 3.7; 

(>=1,240 and 

<1,975) 4.7; 

(>=1,975 and 

<2,500) 6.89– 

0.0011H; (>= 

2,500) 4.1.

(>=875 and <2,210) 

4.5; (>=2,210 and 

<2,500) 6.89– 

0.0011H; (>= 

2,500) 4.1.

(>=815 and <2,455) 

4.2; (>=2,455 and 

<2,500) 6.89– 

0.0011H; (>= 

2,500) 4.1.

(>=710 and <2,455) 

4.2; (>=2,455 and 

<2,500) 6.89– 

0.0011H; (>= 

2,500) 4.1. 

RCU–NRC–Large–B .................. 4.6 .......................... 4.6 .......................... 4.3 .......................... 4.1 .......................... 4.1. 

SCU–W–Large–B ....................... 7.1 .......................... 6.5 .......................... 5.7 .......................... 5.3 .......................... 5.3. 

SCU–A–Small–B ........................ 16.74–0.0436H ...... 14.40–0.0375H ...... 12.6–0.0328H ........ 10.34–0.0227H ...... 10.34–0.0227H. 

SCU–A–Large–B ........................ 9.1 .......................... 7.8 .......................... 6.9 .......................... 6.4 .......................... 6.4. 

IMH–A–Small–C ......................... 9.90–0.0057H ........ 9.35–0.0053H ........ 9.24–0.0061H ........ 8.69–0.0058H ........ 7.55–0.0042H. 

IMH–A–Large–C ........................ 5.9 .......................... 5.6 .......................... 5.0 .......................... 4.6 .......................... 4.6. 

SCU–A–Small–C ........................ 10.70–0.0058H ...... 9.75–0.0053H ........ 9.20–0.0050H ........ 9.20–0.0050H ........ 8.26–0.0045H. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14913 

TABLE V.5—DIRECTLY ANALYZED

EQUIPMENT CLASSES USED TO DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY

CLASSES

Secondary 

equipment 

class 

Directly analyzed 

product class associated 

with efficiency level for 

secondary product class 

RCU–NRC–Small– 

B.

RCU–NRC–Large–B. 

RCU–RC–Small–B RCU–NRC–Large–B. 

RCU–RC–Large–B RCU–NRC–Large–B. 

SCU–W–Small–B SCU–W–Large–B. 

IMH–W–Small–C .. IMH–A–Large–C. 

TABLE V.5—DIRECTLY ANALYZED

EQUIPMENT CLASSES USED TO DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY

CLASSES—Continued 

Secondary 

equipment 

class 

Directly analyzed 

product class associated 

with efficiency level for 

secondary product class 

IMH–W–Large–C .. IMH–A–Large–C. 

RCU–NRC–Small– 

C.

IMH–A–Large–C. 

RCU–NRC–Large– 

C.

IMH–A–Large–C. 

TABLE V.5—DIRECTLY ANALYZED

EQUIPMENT CLASSES USED TO DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY

CLASSES—Continued 

Secondary 

equipment 

class 

Directly analyzed 

product class associated 

with efficiency level for 

secondary product class 

RCU–RC–Small–C IMH–A–Large–C. 

RCU–RC–Large–C IMH–A–Large–C. 

SCU–W–Small–C SCU–A–Small–C. 

SCU–W–Large–C SCU–A–Small–C. 

SCU–A–Large–C .. SCU–A–Small–C. 

TABLE V.6—POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY CLASSES

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

RCU–NRC–Small–B .................. 8.04–0.0034H ........ 8.04–0.0034H ........ 7.52–0.0032H ........ 7.08–0.0030H ........ 7.05–0.0030H. 

RCU–RC–Small–B ..................... 8.02–0.0034H ........ 8.02–0.0034H ........ 7.52–0.0032H ........ 7.08–0.0030H ........ 7.06–0.0030H. 

RCU–RC–Large–B ..................... 4.8 .......................... 4.8 .......................... 4.5 .......................... 4.3 .......................... 4.3. 

SCU–W–Small–B ....................... 10.60–0.0177H ...... 9.69–0.0162H ........ 8.55–0.0143H ........ 7.98–0.0133H ........ 7.96–0.0133H. 

IMH–W–Small–C ........................ 7.29–0.0030H ........ 6.86–0.0028H ........ 6.08–0.0025H ........ 5.67–0.0023H ........ 5.65–0.0023H. 

IMH–W–Large–C ....................... 4.6 .......................... 4.3 .......................... 3.8 .......................... 3.6 .......................... 3.6. 

RCU–NRC–Small–C .................. 9.00–0.0041H ........ 8.50–0.0039H ........ 7.5–0.0034H .......... 7.00–0.0032H ........ 6.98–0.0032H. 

RCU–NRC–Large–C .................. 5.5 .......................... 5.2 .......................... 4.6 .......................... 4.3 .......................... 4.3. 

RCU–RC–Small–C ..................... 9.18–0.0041H ........ 8.67–0.0039H ........ 7.65–0.0034H ........ 7.14–0.0031H ........ 7.12–0.0031H. 

RCU–RC–Large–C .................... 5.7 .......................... 5.4 .......................... 4.8 .......................... 4.5 .......................... 4.5. 

SCU–W–Small–C ....................... 8.46–0.0031H ........ 7.74–0.0028H ........ 7.28–0.0027H ........ 7.28–0.0027H ........ 6.53–0.0024H. 

SCU–W–Large–C ...................... 5.7 .......................... 5.2 .......................... 4.9 .......................... 4.9 .......................... 4.4. 

SCU–A–Large–C ....................... 6.6 .......................... 6.0 .......................... 5.7 .......................... 5.7 .......................... 5.1. 

In developing TSLs, DOE analyzed 

each equipment class separately, and 

attributed a percentage reduction with 

each portion of the standard curve 

(small/medium/large). To ensure that 

the standard curve remained connected 

(no gaps at the breakpoints), DOE 

developed a method for expressing the 

consumption standards that relied on 

pivoting the low-capacity equipment 

classes about a representative point. 

DOE was able to use the same 

methodology for most equipment 

classes, with exceptions for IMH–W–B, 

IMH–A–B, and RCU–RC equipment 

classes. 

In drawing a relationship between the 

harvest capacity (lb ice/24 hours) and 

the maximum allowed energy usage 

(kilowatt-hours per 100 lb of ice), DOE 

first took the large-capacity equipment 

class (which is set at a constant value 

for all equipment types except IMH–A) 

and applied the allocated percentage 

reduction (percentage reduction 

associated with the TSL for that 

equipment class). For example, for 

IMH–W–Large–B, the baseline level is 

set at 4.0. If the TSL allocated a 10- 

percent reduction for IMH–W–Large–B, 

then the next level was set at 4.0 × (1– 

10 percent) = 3.6 kWh/100 lb of ice. 

Then, for the small equipment classes, 

DOE applied the allocated percentage 

reduction at a designated median 

capacity in that harvest rate range. The 

medium capacity was selected based on 

shipment levels, and where the median 

fell within the shipments data. For 

example, if the median capacity for the 

small equipment class was at 300 lb ice/ 

24 hours, DOE would calculate the 

baseline energy usage and then apply 

the allocated percentage reduction to 

obtain a point at 300 lb ice/24 hours. 

DOE would then draw a line between 

the start of the large equipment class 

and this median capacity point to obtain 

the equation for the small equipment 

class, ensuring that there were no gaps 

between small and large-capacity. 

For the IMH–W–B equipment classes, 

this equipment type has small, medium, 

and large equipment classes. In this 

case, for the small equipment class, DOE 

applied the allocated percentage 

reduction to the whole equation. So if 

the percentage reduction was 10 

percent, the new equation for the small 

equipment class would be (1–10 

percent) × (7.80 ¥ 0.0055H) = 7.02 ¥ 

0.00495H. DOE would then draw a line 

between the end of the small equipment 

class and the start of the large 

equipment class, to obtain the equation 

for the medium equipment class. 

For the IMH–A–B equipment classes, 

DOE sought to obtain a constant 

efficiency level for the largest 

equipment classes. This calculation is 

discussed in section IV.B.1.b. 

For the RCU–RC–B and RCU–RC–C 

equipment classes, DOE simply took the 

standard levels calculated for the large 

RCU–NRC–B and RCU–NRC–C 

equipment classes, respectively, and 

subtracted the 0.2 kWh/100 lb of ice 

differential discussed in section 

IV.B.1.e, to arrive at the standard levels. 

For the small RCU classes, the remote 

compressor standards were developed 

such that no gap exists at the harvest 

rate breakpoints. 

Using the typical unit size for directly 

analyzed equipment classes, the 

potential standards shown on Table V.4, 

DOE estimates energy usage for 

equipment within each class to be as 

shown on Table V.7. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14914 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.7—ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY TSL FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER UNITS

Equipment class Representative harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Energy consumption of the representative automatic 

commercial ice maker unit 

kWh/100 lb 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ................................... 300 ....................................... 5.5 5.2 4.6 4.6 4.3 

IMH–W–Med–B ..................................... 850 ....................................... 4.2 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.5 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 ............................... 1500 ..................................... 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.3 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ............................... 2600 ..................................... 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.3 

IMH–A–Small–B .................................... 300 ....................................... 6.9 6.5 5.8 5.4 5.3 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 ................................ 800 ....................................... 5.4 5.1 4.5 4.2 4.1 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 ................................ 1500 ..................................... 3.7 4.7 4.5 4.2 4.2 

RCU–Large–B–1 ................................... 1500 ..................................... 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.1 4.1 

RCU–Large–B–2 ................................... 2400 ..................................... 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.1 4.1 

SCU–W–Large–B .................................. 300 ....................................... 7.1 6.5 5.7 5.3 5.3 

SCU–A–Small–B ................................... 110 ....................................... 11.9 10.3 9.0 7.8 7.8 

SCU–A–Large–B ................................... 200 ....................................... 9.1 7.8 6.9 6.4 6.4 

IMH–A–Small–C .................................... 310 ....................................... 8.1 7.7 7.3 6.9 6.2 

IMH–A–Large–C ................................... 820 ....................................... 5.9 5.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 

SCU–A–Small–C ................................... 110 ....................................... 10.1 9.2 8.7 8.7 7.8 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Commercial 

Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Customers affected by new or 

amended standards usually incur higher 

purchase prices and lower operating 

costs. DOE evaluates these impacts on 

individual customers by calculating 

changes in LCC and the PBP associated 

with the TSLs. The results of the LCC 

analysis for each TSL were obtained by 

comparing the installed and operating 

costs of the equipment in the base-case 

scenario (scenario with no amended 

energy conservation standards) against 

the standards-case scenarios at each 

TSL. The energy consumption values for 

both the base-case and standards-case 

scenarios were calculated based on the 

DOE test procedure conditions specified 

in the 2012 test procedure final rule, 

which adopts an industry-accepted test 

method. Using the approach described 

in section IV.G, DOE calculated the LCC 

savings and PBPs for the TSLs 

considered in this NOPR. The LCC 

analysis is carried out in the form of 

Monte Carlo simulations. Consequently, 

the results of LCC analysis are 

distributed over a range of values, as 

opposed to a single deterministic value. 

DOE presents the mean or median 

values, as appropriate, calculated from 

the distributions of results. 

Table V.8 through Table V.25 show 

the results of the LCC analysis for each 

equipment class. Each table presents the 

results of the LCC analysis, including 

mean LCC, mean LCC savings, median 

PBP, and distribution of customer 

impacts in the form of percentages of 

customers who experience net cost, no 

impact, or net benefit. 

Only two equipment classes have 

negative LCC savings values at TSL 5: 

SCU–A–Small–C and IMH–A–Small–C. 

Negative average LCC savings imply 

that, on average, customers experience 

an increase in LCC of the equipment as 

a consequence of buying equipment 

associated with that particular TSL. In 

many cases, the TSL 5 level is not 

negative, but the LCC savings are 

sharply lower than the TSL 3 levels. For 

IMH–W–Small–B, SCU–W–Large–B, 

and SCU–A–Small–B, the TSL 5 LCC 

savings are less than one-third the TSL 

3 savings. In other cases, such as IMH– 

W–Large–B2, IMH–A–Small–B, SCU– 

A–Large–B, and IMH–A–Large–C, the 

TSL 5 LCC savings are roughly one-half 

of the TSL 3 LCC savings or less. All of 

these results indicate the cost 

increments associated with the maxtech design option are high, and the 

increase in LCC (and corresponding 

decrease in LCC savings) indicates that 

this design option may result in 

negative customer impacts. TSL 5 is 

associated with the max-tech level for 

all the equipment classes. Drain water 

heat exchanger technology is the design 

option associated with the max-tech 

efficiency levels for batch equipment 

classes. For continuous equipment 

classes, the max-tech design options are 

auger motors using permanent magnets. 

The mean LCC savings associated 

with TSL 4 are all positive values for all 

equipment classes. The mean LCC 

savings at all lower TSL levels are also 

positive. The trend is generally an 

increase in LCC savings for TSL 1 

through 3, with LCC savings either 

remaining constant or declining at TSL 

4. In three cases, the highest LCC 

savings are at TSL 2: IMH–A–Large–B2, 

RCU–Large–B2, and SCU–A–Large–B. 

The drop-off in LCC savings at TSL 4 is 

generally associated with the relatively 

large cost for the max-tech design 

options, the savings for which 

frequently span the last two efficiency 

levels. 

As described in section IV.H.2, DOE 

used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario in this 

rulemaking. Under the roll-up scenario, 

DOE assumes that the market shares of 

the efficiency levels (in the base case) 

that do not meet the standard level 

under consideration would be ‘‘rolled 

up’’ into (meaning ‘‘added to’’) the 

market share of the efficiency level at 

the standard level under consideration, 

and the market shares of efficiency 

levels that are above the standard level 

under consideration would remain 

unaffected. Customers, in the base-case 

scenario, who buy the equipment at or 

above the TSL under consideration, 

would be unaffected if the amended 

standard were to be set at that TSL. 

Customers, in the base-case scenario, 

who buy equipment below the TSL 

under consideration would be affected if 

the amended standard were to be set at 

that TSL. Among these affected 

customers, some may benefit from lower 

LCC of the equipment and some may 

incur net cost due to higher LCC, 

depending on the inputs to LCC analysis 

such as electricity prices, discount rates, 

installation costs, and markups. DOE’s 

results indicate that, with one 

exception, customers either benefit or 

are unaffected by setting standards at 

TSLs 1, 2, or 3, and at TSL 4 in the case 

of SCU–A–Small–C. Customers either 

benefit or are unaffected at all 5 TSLs in 

the case of IMH–W–Large–B1. In the 

case of IMH–W–Small–B, 3 percent of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14915 

customers are projected to experience a 

net cost at TSL 3. A large percentage of 

customers in batch equipment classes 

are unaffected by a standard set at TSL 

1 given the equivalence to ENERGY 

STAR and the prevalence of ENERGY 

STAR qualifying equipment in those 

classes. At the other end of the range, in 

almost all cases, a portion of the market 

would experience net costs starting with 

TSL 4, although generally the portion 

experiencing a net cost is fairly low. At 

TSL 5, the range is wide, with all 

customers either unaffected or with a 

net benefit for the IMH–W–Large–B1 

typical unit at one extreme and 100 

percent of customers with either a net 

cost or unaffected for SCU–A–Small–C. 

In the cases of nine of the 18 equipment 

classes and/or typical unit sizes 

modeled (12 classes plus 3 pairs of 

typical units for large, batch type 

equipment classes), 20 percent or more 

of customers would experience a net 

cost at TSL 5. In the other nine cases, 

the percent of customers experiencing a 

net cost at TSL 5 ranges from 0 to 16 

percent, with the remaining customers 

either unaffected or experiencing a net 

benefit. 

The median PBP values for TSLs 1 

through 3 are all less than 2 years, 

except for IMH–W–Small–B where the 

TSL 3 PBP is 2.3 years. The median PBP 

values for TSL 4 range from 1.9 years to 

4.8 years. 

PBP values for TSL 5 range from 2.2 

years to over 19 years. SCU–A–Small– 

C exhibits the longest PBP for TSL 5 at 

19.1 years. IMH–A–Small–C has a PBP 

of nearly 7 years, while IMH–W–Small– 

B has a PBP over 5 years. IMH–A– 

Small–B and SCU–A–Small–B both 

PBPs at or above 4 years for TSL 5. 

TABLE V.8—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–SMALL–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 3,052 2,425 10,862 13,286 199 0 61 39 1.1 

2 .............................. 2,884 2,451 10,740 13,191 215 0 35 65 1.3 

3 .............................. 2,547 2,614 10,369 12,982 328 3 0 97 2.3 

4 .............................. 2,547 2,614 10,369 12,982 328 3 0 97 2.3 

5 .............................. 2,400 2,999 10,262 13,261 49 45 0 55 5.4 

TABLE V.9—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–MED–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 6,507 4,241 24,859 29,100 464 0 31 69 0.6 

2 .............................. 6,507 4,241 24,859 29,100 464 0 31 69 0.6 

3 .............................. 6,147 4,286 24,601 28,887 587 0 14 86 0.9 

4 .............................. 5,786 4,656 24,341 28,997 405 15 2 83 3.3 

5 .............................. 5,691 4,671 24,272 28,943 460 11 2 87 3.2 

TABLE V.10—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 11,585 6,243 49,854 56,097 833 0 38 62 0.7 

2 .............................. 11,585 6,243 49,854 56,097 833 0 38 62 0.7 

3 .............................. 11,585 6,243 49,854 56,097 833 0 38 62 0.7 

4 .............................. 10,943 6,813 49,390 56,202 550 8 26 66 3.6 

5 .............................. 10,783 6,868 49,274 56,142 582 7 22 71 3.6 

TABLE V.11—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–LARGE–B1 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 9,877 5,132 42,919 48,051 701 0 29 71 0.7 

2 .............................. 9,877 5,132 42,919 48,051 701 0 29 71 0.7 

3 .............................. 9,877 5,132 42,919 48,051 701 0 29 71 0.7 

4 .............................. 9,329 5,646 42,523 48,170 583 0 29 71 3.7 

5 .............................. 9,147 5,717 42,392 48,109 607 0 24 76 3.8 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14916 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.12—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–LARGE–B2 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 17,104 9,833 72,254 82,087 1,260 0 67 33 0.6 

2 .............................. 17,104 9,833 72,254 82,087 1,260 0 67 33 0.6 

3 .............................. 17,104 9,833 72,254 82,087 1,260 0 67 33 0.6 

4 .............................. 16,155 10,581 71,569 82,150 442 35 17 48 3.1 

5 .............................. 16,067 10,587 71,506 82,093 500 29 17 54 3.0 

TABLE V.13—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–SMALL–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 3,806 2,475 9,046 11,521 254 0 63 37 1.1 

2 .............................. 3,596 2,506 8,894 11,400 259 0 32 68 1.2 

3 .............................. 3,176 2,574 8,601 11,174 396 0 0 100 1.4 

4 .............................. 2,965 2,951 8,449 11,400 170 27 0 73 4.3 

5 .............................. 2,909 2,964 8,408 11,372 198 22 0 78 4.2 

TABLE V.14—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 8,704 4,179 16,075 20,254 648 0 60 40 0.5 

2 .............................. 8,334 4,199 15,813 20,013 633 0 23 77 0.5 

3 .............................. 7,482 4,335 15,017 19,352 1,127 0 6 94 0.8 

4 .............................. 7,041 4,739 14,703 19,442 994 4 2 94 2.2 

5 .............................. 7,041 4,739 14,703 19,442 994 4 2 94 2.2 

TABLE V.15—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–LARGE–B1 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 7,919 4,119 15,303 19,421 590 0 59 41 0.5 

2 .............................. 7,480 4,143 14,993 19,135 572 0 15 85 0.5 

3 .............................. 6,603 4,279 14,143 18,421 1,168 0 0 100 0.8 

4 .............................. 6,213 4,663 13,865 18,528 1,062 1 0 99 2.1 

5 .............................. 6,213 4,663 13,865 18,528 1,062 1 0 99 2.1 

TABLE V.16—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–LARGE–B2 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 12,932 4,505 20,234 24,739 960 0 67 33 0.4 

2 .............................. 12,932 4,505 20,234 24,739 960 0 67 33 0.4 

3 .............................. 12,215 4,641 19,725 24,366 908 0 40 60 0.9 

4 .............................. 11,498 5,151 19,217 24,368 627 16 13 70 2.6 

5 .............................. 11,498 5,151 19,217 24,368 627 16 13 70 2.6 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14917 

TABLE V.17—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR RCU–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 13,205 6,321 16,686 23,007 875 0 58 42 0.4 

2 .............................. 13,205 6,321 16,686 23,007 875 0 58 42 0.4 

3 .............................. 12,335 6,406 16,063 22,469 983 0 18 82 0.6 

4 .............................. 11,611 6,934 15,551 22,485 870 6 10 85 2.4 

5 .............................. 11,526 6,968 15,490 22,458 897 5 10 85 2.4 

TABLE V.18—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR RCU–LARGE–B1 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 12,727 6,135 16,214 22,349 847 0 57 43 0.4 

2 .............................. 12,727 6,135 16,214 22,349 847 0 57 43 0.4 

3 .............................. 11,889 6,214 15,614 21,828 963 0 18 82 0.6 

4 .............................. 11,191 6,722 15,119 21,840 857 6 9 85 2.4 

5 .............................. 11,108 6,756 15,059 21,815 882 5 9 86 2.4 

TABLE V.19—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR RCU–LARGE–B2 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 20,349 9,105 23,743 32,847 1,298 0 73 27 0.8 

2 .............................. 20,349 9,105 23,743 32,847 1,298 0 73 27 0.8 

3 .............................. 19,009 9,283 22,775 32,058 1,277 0 27 73 1.0 

4 .............................. 17,892 10,108 22,017 32,124 1,070 7 18 75 2.7 

5 .............................. 17,779 10,137 21,935 32,072 1,123 6 18 76 2.7 

TABLE V.20—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SCU–W–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 3,892 3,501 12,082 15,583 483 0 71 29 0.7 

2 .............................. 3,559 3,530 11,849 15,379 687 0 71 29 0.8 

3 .............................. 3,143 3,596 11,548 15,144 694 0 57 43 1.0 

4 .............................. 2,935 3,950 11,398 15,348 143 49 14 36 3.0 

5 .............................. 2,925 3,951 11,391 15,342 149 49 14 37 3.0 

TABLE V.21—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SCU–A–SMALL–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 2,419 2,772 7,548 10,321 103 0 83 17 1.4 

2 .............................. 2,084 2,821 7,320 10,141 198 0 37 63 1.5 

3 .............................. 1,826 2,896 6,979 9,875 396 0 11 89 1.6 

4 .............................. 1,585 3,306 6,813 10,119 106 32 0 68 4.8 

5 .............................. 1,585 3,306 6,813 10,119 106 32 0 68 4.8 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.22—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SCU–A–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 3,349 3,243 10,645 13,888 140 0 71 29 1.4 

2 .............................. 2,884 3,324 10,105 13,429 522 0 36 64 1.2 

3 .............................. 2,526 3,405 9,857 13,262 502 0 7 93 1.5 

4 .............................. 2,351 3,758 9,731 13,489 240 34 0 66 3.7 

5 .............................. 2,351 3,758 9,731 13,489 240 34 0 66 3.7 

TABLE V.23—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–SMALL–C EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ * 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 4,630 6,644 9,390 16,034 315 0 77 23 0.9 

2 .............................. 4,374 6,666 9,212 15,877 314 0 54 46 0.9 

3 .............................. 4,118 6,694 9,031 15,726 391 0 40 60 1.0 

4 .............................. 3,862 6,913 8,848 15,761 307 8 31 61 2.6 

5 .............................. 3,555 7,461 8,789 16,251 (237) 73 11 16 6.8 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. 

TABLE V.24—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–LARGE–C EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 8,911 5,518 15,462 20,980 660 0 65 35 0.5 

2 .............................. 8,417 5,543 15,113 20,656 744 0 45 55 0.5 

3 .............................. 7,430 5,630 14,426 20,055 1,026 0 15 85 0.7 

4 .............................. 6,936 6,288 14,269 20,557 524 21 15 64 3.2 

5 .............................. 6,912 6,289 14,262 20,552 500 21 10 69 3.2 

TABLE V.25—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SCU–A–SMALL–C EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL Energy 

usage kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected customers’ average savings 

2012$ * 

% of customers that experience 

Net cost 

% 

No impact 

% 

Net benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 2,040 3,603 7,243 10,846 93 0 73 27 1.1 

2 .............................. 1,866 3,632 7,127 10,760 140 0 53 47 1.5 

3 .............................. 1,758 3,659 7,057 10,717 146 0 37 63 1.9 

4 .............................. 1,758 3,659 7,057 10,717 146 0 37 63 1.9 

5 .............................. 1,580 4,196 7,099 11,295 (441) 80 20 0 19.1 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. 

b. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis 

As described in section IV.I, DOE 

estimated the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers, at each TSL, on 

two customer subgroups—the 

foodservice sector and the lodging 

sector. For the automatic commercial ice 

makers, DOE has not distinguished 

between subsectors of the foodservice 

industry. In other words, DOE has been 

treating it as one sector as opposed to 

modeling limited or full service 

restaurants and other types of 

foodservice firms separately. 

Foodservice was chosen as one 

representative subgroup because of the 

large percentage of the industry 

represented by family or locally owned 

restaurants. Likewise, lodging was 

chosen due to the large percentage of 

the industry represented by locally 

owned, or franchisee-owned hotels. 

DOE carried out two LCC subgroup 

analyses, one each for restaurants and 

lodging, by using the LCC spreadsheet 

described in chapter 8 of the NOPR, but 

with certain modifications. The input 

for business type was fixed to the 

identified subgroup, which ensured that 

the discount rates and electricity price 

rates associated with only that subgroup 

were selected in the Monte Carlo 

simulations (see chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD). Another major change from the 

LCC analysis was an added assumption 

that the subgroups do not have access to 

national capital markets, which results 

in higher discount rates for the 

subgroups. The higher discount rates 

lead the subgroups valuing more highly 

upfront equipment purchase costs 

relative to the future operating cost 

savings. The LCC subgroup analysis is 

described in chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14919 

Table V.26 presents the comparison of 

mean LCC savings for the small business 

subgroup in foodservice sector with the 

national average values (LCC savings 

results from chapter 8 of the NOPR 

TSD). For almost all TSLs in all 

equipment classes, the LCC savings for 

the small business subgroup are lower 

than the national average values. The 

exception is the TSL 5 result for SCU– 

A–Small–C. Table V.27 presents the 

percentage change in LCC savings 

compared to national average values. 

DOE modeled all equipment classes in 

this analysis, although DOE believes it 

is likely that the very large equipment 

classes are not commonly used in 

foodservice establishments. For TSLs 1 

through 3, the differences range from 

¥2 percent to ¥6 percent. For all but 

three equipment classes in Table V.27, 

the percentage decrease in LCC savings 

is less than 10 percent for all TSLs. For 

SCU–W–Large–B, the TSL 4 and 5 

differences were ¥11 percent. SCU–A– 

Small–B, the TSL 4 and 5 differences 

were ¥17 percent. For IMH–W–Small– 

B, the TSL 5 difference is ¥37 percent. 

Table V.28 presents the comparison of 

median PBPs for the small business 

subgroup in foodservice sector with 

national median values (median PBPs 

from chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD). The 

PBP values are shorter for the small 

business subgroup in all cases. This 

arises because the first-year operating 

cost savings—which are used for 

payback period—are higher leading to a 

shorter payback, but given their higher 

discount rates, these customers value 

future savings less, leading to lower LCC 

savings. First-year savings are higher 

because the foodservice electricity 

prices are higher than the average of all 

classes. 

Table V.29 presents the comparison of 

mean LCC savings for the small business 

subgroup in lodging sector (hotels and 

casinos) with the national average 

values (LCC savings results from chapter 

8 of the NOPR TSD). Table V.30 

presents the percentage change in LCC 

savings of the lodging sector customer 

subgroup to national average values. For 

lodging sector small business, LCC 

savings are lower across the board. For 

TSLs 1 through 3, the lodging subgroup 

LCC savings range from 9 to 13 percent 

lower. The reason for this is that the 

energy price for lodging is slightly lower 

than the average of all commercial 

business types (97 percent of the 

average). This combined with a higher 

discount rate reduces the nominal value 

of future operating and maintenance 

benefits as well as the present value of 

the benefits, thus resulting in lower LCC 

savings. 

Table V.31 presents the comparison of 

median PBPs for small business 

subgroup in the lodging sector with 

national median values (median PBPs 

from chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD). The 

PBP values are slightly higher in the 

lodging small business subgroup in all 

instances. As noted above, the energy 

savings would be lower in nominal 

terms than a national average Thus, the 

slightly lower median PBP appears to be 

a result of a narrower electricity saving 

results distribution that is close to but 

below the national average. 

TABLE V.26—COMPARISON OF MEAN LCC SAVINGS FOR THE FOODSERVICE SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP WITH

THE NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES

Equipment class Category 

Mean LCC savings 

2012$ * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 195 210 312 312 31 

All Business Types ................................. 199 215 328 328 49 

IMH–W–Med–B ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 455 455 575 390 443 

All Business Types ................................. 464 464 587 405 460 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 816 816 816 528 559 

All Business Types ................................. 833 833 833 550 582 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .................................. Small Business ....................................... 687 687 687 561 585 

All Business Types ................................. 701 701 701 583 607 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .................................. Small Business ....................................... 1,233 1,233 1,233 419 476 

All Business Types ................................. 1,260 1,260 1,260 442 500 

IMH–A–Small–B ...................................... Small Business ....................................... 249 253 387 159 185 

All Business Types ................................. 254 259 396 170 198 

IMH–A–Large–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 635 621 1,094 956 956 

All Business Types ................................. 648 633 1,127 994 994 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 578 561 1,132 1,021 1,021

All Business Types ................................. 590 572 1,168 1,062 1,062 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 941 941 888 604 604 

All Business Types ................................. 960 960 908 627 627 

RCU–Large–B ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 858 858 963 843 869 

All Business Types ................................. 875 875 983 870 897 

RCU–Large–B1 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 830 830 944 831 855 

All Business Types ................................. 847 847 963 857 882 

RCU–Large–B2 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 1,270 1,270 1,249 1,032 1,084 

All Business Types ................................. 1,298 1,298 1,277 1,070 1,123 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................... Small Business ....................................... 455 655 666 126 132 

All Business Types ................................. 483 687 694 143 149 

SCU–A–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 100 194 378 88 88 

All Business Types ................................. 103 198 396 106 106 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 137 498 483 219 219 

All Business Types ................................. 140 522 502 240 240 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 308 307 383 296 (238) 

All Business Types ................................. 315 314 391 307 (237) 

IMH–A–Large–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 647 729 1,006 512 489 

All Business Types ................................. 660 744 1,026 524 500 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................... Small Business ....................................... 91 137 143 143 (434) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14920 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.26—COMPARISON OF MEAN LCC SAVINGS FOR THE FOODSERVICE SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP WITH

THE NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES—Continued 

Equipment class Category 

Mean LCC savings 

2012$ * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

All Business Types ................................. 93 140 146 146 (441) 

* Values in parenthesis are negative numbers. 

TABLE V.27—PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN MEAN LCC SAVINGS FOR THE FOODSERVICE SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS

SUBGROUP COMPARED TO NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES * 

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (5%) (5%) (37%) 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ (2%) (2%) (2%) (4%) (4%) 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (2%) (4%) (4%) 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (2%) (4%) (4%) 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (2%) (5%) (5%) 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (2%) (7%) (6%) 

IMH–A–Large–B ...................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (3%) (4%) (4%) 

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (3%) (4%) (4%) 

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (2%) (4%) (4%) 

RCU–Large–B .......................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (2%) (3%) (3%) 

RCU–Large–B1 ........................................................................................ (2%) (2%) (2%) (3%) (3%) 

RCU–Large–B2 ........................................................................................ (2%) (2%) (2%) (3%) (3%) 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... (6%) (5%) (4%) (11%) (11%) 

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (5%) (17%) (17%) 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... (2%) (4%) (4%) (9%) (9%) 

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (2%) (3%) 0% 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (2%) (2%) (2%) 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... (2%) (2%) (2%) (2%) 2% 

* Values in parenthesis are negative numbers. Negative percentage values imply decrease in LCC savings and positive percentage values 

imply increase in LCC savings. 

TABLE V.28—COMPARISON OF MEDIAN PAYBACK PERIODS FOR THE FOODSERVICE SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP

WITH NATIONAL MEDIAN VALUES

Equipment class Category 

Median payback period 

years 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.02 1.20 2.16 2.16 5.14

All Business Types ................................. 1.07 1.26 2.27 2.27 5.42 

IMH–W–Med–B ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.60 0.60 0.81 3.17 3.06

All Business Types ................................. 0.63 0.63 0.85 3.33 3.22 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.65 0.65 0.65 3.42 3.42 

All Business Types ................................. 0.69 0.69 0.69 3.59 3.60 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .................................. Small Business ....................................... 0.68 0.68 0.68 3.57 3.59 

All Business Types ................................. 0.72 0.72 0.72 3.75 3.77 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .................................. Small Business ....................................... 0.55 0.55 0.55 2.95 2.88 

All Business Types ................................. 0.58 0.58 0.58 3.10 3.02 

IMH–A–Small–B ...................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.02 1.16 1.35 4.11 4.03 

All Business Types ................................. 1.07 1.22 1.42 4.32 4.24 

IMH–A–Large–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.44 0.47 0.80 2.06 2.06

All Business Types ................................. 0.46 0.49 0.84 2.16 2.16 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.44 0.48 0.78 1.99 1.99 

All Business Types ................................. 0.46 0.50 0.82 2.08 2.08 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.40 0.40 0.90 2.45 2.45 

All Business Types ................................. 0.42 0.42 0.94 2.58 2.58 

RCU–Large–B ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.39 0.39 0.62 2.27 2.32 

All Business Types ................................. 0.41 0.41 0.65 2.39 2.44 

RCU–Large–B1 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.37 0.37 0.59 2.25 2.31 

All Business Types ................................. 0.38 0.38 0.62 2.37 2.42 

RCU–Large–B2 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.72 0.72 0.96 2.57 2.57 

All Business Types ................................. 0.75 0.75 1.00 2.70 2.70 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.65 0.73 0.96 2.87 2.86 

All Business Types ................................. 0.67 0.76 1.00 3.01 3.00 

SCU–A–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.33 1.44 1.48 4.54 4.54

All Business Types ................................. 1.40 1.52 1.56 4.79 4.79 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.29 1.11 1.42 3.54 3.54 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14921 

TABLE V.28—COMPARISON OF MEDIAN PAYBACK PERIODS FOR THE FOODSERVICE SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP

WITH NATIONAL MEDIAN VALUES—Continued 

Equipment class Category 

Median payback period 

years 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

All Business Types ................................. 1.37 1.17 1.49 3.72 3.72 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.86 0.86 0.92 2.46 6.38

All Business Types ................................. 0.90 0.90 0.97 2.59 6.83 

IMH–A–Large–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.50 0.50 0.65 3.06 3.05

All Business Types ................................. 0.52 0.53 0.69 3.25 3.24 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.08 1.45 1.76 1.76 17.09

All Business Types ................................. 1.13 1.53 1.85 1.85 19.12 

TABLE V.29—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS FOR THE LODGING SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP WITH THE

NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES

Equipment class Category 

Mean LCC savings 

2012$ * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 179 192 285 285 (3) 

All Business Types ................................. 199 215 328 328 49 

IMH–W–Med–B ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 421 421 531 334 382 

All Business Types ................................. 464 464 587 405 460 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 756 756 756 449 476 

All Business Types ................................. 833 833 833 550 582 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .................................. Small Business ....................................... 635 635 635 484 503 

All Business Types ................................. 701 701 701 583 607 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .................................. Small Business ....................................... 1,144 1,144 1,144 338 390 

All Business Types ................................. 1,260 1,260 1,260 442 500 

IMH–A–Small–B ...................................... Small Business ....................................... 229 232 354 115 139 

All Business Types ................................. 254 259 396 170 198 

IMH–A–Large–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 589 575 1,018 862 862 

All Business Types ................................. 648 633 1,127 994 994 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 536 520 1,056 926 926 

All Business Types ................................. 590 572 1,168 1,062 1,062 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 873 873 816 521 521 

All Business Types ................................. 960 960 908 627 627 

RCU–Large–B ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 796 796 890 744 766 

All Business Types ................................. 875 875 983 870 897 

RCU–Large–B1 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 771 771 873 734 754 

All Business Types ................................. 847 847 963 857 882 

RCU–Large–B2 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 1,175 1,175 1,149 891 937 

All Business Types ................................. 1,298 1,298 1,277 1,070 1,123 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................... Small Business ....................................... 440 624 626 96 102 

All Business Types ................................. 483 687 694 143 149 

SCU–A–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 92 177 353 55 55 

All Business Types ................................. 103 198 396 106 106 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 126 470 448 179 179 

All Business Types ................................. 140 522 502 240 240 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 284 283 352 257 (281) 

All Business Types ................................. 315 314 391 307 (237) 

IMH–A–Large–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 600 676 929 412 394 

All Business Types ................................. 660 744 1,026 524 500 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................... Small Business ....................................... 84 125 128 128 (452) 

All Business Types ................................. 93 140 146 146 (441) 

* Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

TABLE V.30—PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN MEAN LCC SAVINGS FOR THE LODGING SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP

COMPARED TO NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES * 

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... (10%) (10%) (13%) (13%) (107%) 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ (9%) (9%) (10%) (18%) (17%) 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................................................................... (9%) (9%) (9%) (18%) (18%) 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................... (9%) (9%) (9%) (17%) (17%) 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................... (9%) (9%) (9%) (24%) (22%) 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... (10%) (10%) (11%) (32%) (30%) 

IMH–A–Large–B ...................................................................................... (9%) (9%) (10%) (13%) (13%) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14922 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.30—PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN MEAN LCC SAVINGS FOR THE LODGING SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP

COMPARED TO NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES *—Continued 

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................... (9%) (9%) (10%) (13%) (13%) 

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................... (9%) (9%) (10%) (17%) (17%) 

RCU–Large–B .......................................................................................... (9%) (9%) (9%) (15%) (15%)

RCU–Large–B1 ........................................................................................ (9%) (9%) (9%) (14%) (15%) 

RCU–Large–B2 ........................................................................................ (9%) (9%) (10%) (17%) (16%)

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... (9%) (9%) (10%) (33%) (32%) 

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... (11%) (11%) (11%) (49%) (49%) 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... (10%) (10%) (11%) (25%) (25%)

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... (10%) (10%) (10%) (16%) (18%) 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... (9%) (9%) (9%) (21%) (21%) 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... (10%) (11%) (12%) (12%) (2%)

* Values in parentheses are negative numbers. Negative percentage values imply decrease in LCC savings and positive percentage values 

imply increase in LCC savings. 

TABLE V.31—COMPARISON OF MEDIAN PAYBACK PERIODS FOR THE LODGING SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP WITH

THE NATIONAL MEDIAN VALUES

Equipment class Category 

Median payback period 

years 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.09 1.28 2.27 2.27 5.42

All Business Types ................................. 1.07 1.26 2.27 2.27 5.42 

IMH–W–Med–B ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.64 0.64 0.86 3.38 3.26

All Business Types ................................. 0.63 0.63 0.85 3.33 3.22 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.70 0.70 0.70 3.65 3.65 

All Business Types ................................. 0.69 0.69 0.69 3.59 3.60 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .................................. Small Business ....................................... 0.73 0.73 0.73 3.80 3.83 

All Business Types ................................. 0.72 0.72 0.72 3.75 3.77 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .................................. Small Business ....................................... 0.58 0.58 0.58 3.14 3.07 

All Business Types ................................. 0.58 0.58 0.58 3.10 3.02 

IMH–A–Small–B ...................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.08 1.24 1.44 4.39 4.30 

All Business Types ................................. 1.07 1.22 1.42 4.32 4.24 

IMH–A–Large–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.46 0.50 0.85 2.19 2.19

All Business Types ................................. 0.46 0.49 0.84 2.16 2.16 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.47 0.51 0.83 2.11 2.11 

All Business Types ................................. 0.46 0.50 0.82 2.08 2.08 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.43 0.43 0.96 2.61 2.61 

All Business Types ................................. 0.42 0.42 0.94 2.58 2.58 

RCU–Large–B ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.41 0.41 0.66 2.42 2.48 

All Business Types ................................. 0.41 0.41 0.65 2.39 2.44 

RCU–Large–B1 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.39 0.39 0.63 2.40 2.46 

All Business Types ................................. 0.38 0.38 0.62 2.37 2.42 

RCU–Large–B2 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.77 0.77 1.02 2.74 2.74 

All Business Types ................................. 0.75 0.75 1.00 2.70 2.70 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.67 0.75 1.01 3.01 3.00 

All Business Types ................................. 0.67 0.76 1.00 3.01 3.00 

SCU–A–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.42 1.54 1.56 4.79 4.79

All Business Types ................................. 1.40 1.52 1.56 4.79 4.79 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.38 1.17 1.49 3.72 3.72 

All Business Types ................................. 1.37 1.17 1.49 3.72 3.72 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.92 0.92 0.99 2.63 6.88

All Business Types ................................. 0.90 0.90 0.97 2.59 6.83 

IMH–A–Large–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.53 0.53 0.70 3.28 3.28

All Business Types ................................. 0.52 0.53 0.69 3.25 3.24 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.15 1.55 1.88 1.88 19.13

All Business Types ................................. 1.13 1.53 1.85 1.85 19.12 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers. The following section 

describes the expected impacts on 

manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 

of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis 

in further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

The following tables depict the 

financial impacts (represented by 

changes in INPV) of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers as well as the conversion 

costs that DOE estimates manufacturers 

would incur for all equipment classes at 

each TSL. To evaluate the range of cash 

flow impacts on the commercial ice 

maker industry, DOE used two different 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14923 

markup assumptions to model scenarios 

that correspond to the range of 

anticipated market responses to new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards. 

To assess the lower (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts, DOE 

modeled a preservation of gross margin 

percentage markup scenario, in which a 

uniform ‘‘gross margin percentage’’ 

markup is applied across all efficiency 

levels. In this scenario, DOE assumed 

that a manufacturer’s absolute dollar 

markup would increase as production 

costs increase in the amended energy 

conservation standards case. 

Manufacturers have indicated that it is 

optimistic to assume that they would be 

able to maintain the same gross margin 

percentage markup as their production 

costs increase in response to a new or 

amended energy conservation standard, 

particularly at higher TSLs. 

To assess the higher (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts, DOE 

modeled the preservation of the EBIT 

markup scenario, which assumes that 

manufacturers would not be able to 

preserve the same overall gross margin, 

but instead cut their markup for 

marginally compliant products to 

maintain a cost competitive product 

offering and keep the same overall level 

of EBIT as in the base case. The two 

tables below show the range of potential 

INPV impacts for manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers. The 

first table reflects the lower bound of 

impacts (higher profitability) and the 

second represents the upper bound of 

impacts (lower profitability). 

Each scenario results in a unique set 

of cash flows and corresponding 

industry values at each TSL. In the 

following discussion, the INPV results 

refer to the sum of discounted cash 

flows through 2047, the difference in 

INPV between the base case and each 

standards case, and the total industry 

conversion costs required for each 

standards case. 

TABLE V.32—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO * 

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ............................................. 2012$ Millions ............................... $101.8 $93.4 $89.0 $80.9 $82.2 $81.9 

Change in INPV ............................ 2012$ Millions ............................... ................ $(8.4) $(12.8) $(20.9) $(19.6) $(19.9) 

(%) ................................................ ................ (8.2)% (12.6)% (20.5)% (19.2)% (19.5)% 

Product Conversion Costs ............ 2012$ Millions ............................... ................ $17.0 $25.4 $38.3 $44.8 $46.9 

Capital Conversion Costs ............. 2012$ Millions ............................... ................ $0.4 $1.2 $3.9 $6.4 $7.3 

Total Conversion Costs ......... 2012$ Millions ............................... ................ $17.4 $26.6 $42.2 $51.2 $54.2 

* Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

TABLE V.33—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS—PRESERVATION OF EBIT 

MARKUP SCENARIO * 

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ............................................. 2012$ Millions ............................... $101.8 $93.1 $88.2 $77.9 $71.3 $69.2 

Change in INPV ............................ 2012$ Millions ............................... ................ $(8.7) $(13.6) $(23.9) $(30.5) $(32.6) 

(%) ................................................ ................ (8.5)% (13.4)% (23.5)% (30.0)% (32.0)% 

Product Conversion Costs ............ 2012$ Millions ............................... ................ $17.0 $25.4 $38.3 $44.8 $46.9 

Capital Conversion Costs ............. 2012$ Millions ............................... ................ $0.4 $1.2 $3.9 $6.4 $7.3 

Total Conversion Costs ......... 2012$ Millions ............................... ................ $17.4 $26.6 $42.2 $51.2 $54.2 

* Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

Beyond impacts on INPV, DOE 

includes a comparison of free cash flow 

between the base case and the standards 

case at each TSL in the year before 

amended standards take effect to 

provide perspective on the short-run 

cash flow impacts in the discussion of 

the results below. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$8.4 million to ¥$8.7 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥8.2 percent to ¥8.5 

percent. At this TSL, industry free cash 

flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 61 percent to $3.3 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $8.4 million in the year before 

the compliance date (2017). 

DOE estimates that approximately 40 

percent of all batch commercial ice 

makers and 30 percent of all continuous 

commercial ice makers on the market 

will require redesign to meet standards 

at TSL 1. Additionally, for both batch 

and continuous products, the number of 

products requiring redesign at this TSL 

is commensurate with each 

manufacturer’s estimated market share. 

Twelve manufacturers, including three 

small businesses, produce equipment 

that complies with the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 1. 

At TSL 1, the majority of efficiency 

gains could be made through swapping 

purchased components for higher 

efficiency equivalents. It is expected 

that very few evaporators and 

condensers are affected at TSL 1, 

leading to very low expected industry 

capital conversion costs totaling only 

$0.4 million. However, moderate 

product conversion costs of $17.0 

million are expected, as redesigned 

units will require low levels of 

engineering design labor, as well as 

testing for equipment certification. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$12.8 million to ¥$13.6 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥12.6 percent to 

¥13.4 percent. At this TSL, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 97 percent to $0.2 

million, compared to the base-case 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14924 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

value of $8.4 million in the year before 

the compliance date (2017). 

At TSL 2, total conversion costs 

increase to $26.6 million, 53 percent 

higher than those incurred by industry 

at TSL 1. DOE estimates that 

approximately 58 percent of all units on 

the market will require redesign to meet 

the standards outlined at TSL 2. As with 

TSL 1, for batch and continuous 

commercial ice makers, the number of 

products requiring redesign at this TSL 

is largely commensurate with each 

manufacturer’s estimated market share. 

Ten manufacturers, including three 

small businesses, produce equipment 

that complies with the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 2. 

The majority of redesigns still rely on 

switching to higher efficiency 

components, but a limited number of 

units are expected to require more 

complex system redesigns including the 

evaporator and condenser. The 

increased, but moderate, complexity of 

these redesigns causes product 

conversion costs to grow at a slightly 

higher rate than the additional number 

of units requiring redesign, resulting in 

industry-wide product conversion costs 

totaling $25.4 million. Capital 

conversion costs continue to remain 

relatively low at $1.2 million, as most 

design options considered at TSL 2 can 

be integrated into production without 

changes to manufacturing capital. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$20.9 million to ¥$23.9 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥20.5 percent to 

¥23.5 percent. At this TSL, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 180 percent to ¥$6.7 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $8.4 million in the year before 

the compliance date (2017). 

At TSL 3, total conversion costs grow 

significantly to $42.2 million, an 

increase of 59 percent over those 

incurred by manufacturers at TSL 2. 

DOE estimates that approximately 88 

percent of all batch products and 75 

percent of all continuous products on 

the market will require redesign to meet 

this TSL. Six of the 12 manufacturers of 

batch equipment currently produce 

batch commercial ice makers that 

comply with the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 3. This includes one 

small business manufacturer. In 

contrast, all six manufacturers of 

continuous commercial ice makers 

identified produce products that comply 

with the efficiency levels specified at 

TSL 3. 

The majority of redesigns necessary to 

meet the standards at TSL 3 involve 

more complex changes to the evaporator 

and condenser systems. These complex 

redesigns result in product conversion 

costs increasing at a rate higher than 

simply the additional number of units 

that require redesign. At TSL 3, the 

resulting industry product conversion 

costs total $38.3 million. Additionally, 

capital conversion costs jump 

significantly to $3.9 million, as 

evaporator and condenser redesigns 

spur investments in tooling for both of 

these components and the surrounding 

enclosure. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$19.6 million to ¥$30.5 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥19.2 percent to 

¥30.0 percent. At this TSL, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 227 percent to ¥$10.7 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $8.4 million in the year before 

the compliance date (2017). 

At TSL 4, total conversion costs grow 

to $51.2 million. Relative to the change 

between TSLs 2 and 3, the increases in 

conversion costs at TSL 4 are smaller as 

the percentage of batch and continuous 

units requiring redesign grows to 96 

percent and 77 percent, respectively. 

These fractions are up from 88 percent 

and 75 percent, respectively, at TSL 3. 

Only two manufacturers, including one 

small business manufacturer, currently 

produce batch commercial ice makers 

that comply with the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 4. In contrast, all six 

manufacturers of continuous 

commercial ice makers identified 

produce products that comply with the 

efficiency levels specified at TSL 4. 

With very few additional units 

needing redesigns, costs incurred are 

mainly incremental, and account for the 

increasing complexity of condenser and 

evaporator redesigns. Product 

conversion costs grow to $44.8 million, 

17 percent above those at TSL 3. 

However, the increasing complexity of 

redesign does incur greater capital 

conversion costs, which grow to $6.4 

million as additional capital 

investments are required to modify 

production lines to manufacture these 

more complex designs. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$19.9 million to ¥$32.6 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥19.5 percent to 

¥32.0 percent. At this TSL, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 243 percent to ¥$12.0 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $8.4 million in the year before 

the compliance date (2017). 

As with TSL 4, only two 

manufacturers, including one small 

business manufacturer, currently 

produce batch commercial ice makers 

that comply with the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 5. For manufacturers of 

continuous commercial ice makers, this 

number drops from six to four. As 

compared to the previous increases in 

required efficiency between TSLs, the 

changes between TSL 4 and TSL 5 are 

minimal. As a result, total conversion 

costs grow only slightly, rising 6 percent 

to $54.2 million. This consists of $46.9 

million in product conversion costs and 

$7.3 million in capital conversion costs. 

b. Impacts on Direct Employment 

DOE used the GRIM to estimate the 

domestic labor expenditures and 

number of domestic production workers 

in the base case and at each TSL from 

2013 to 2047. DOE used statistical data 

from the most recent U.S Census 

Bureau’s ‘‘Annual Survey of 

Manufactures,’’ the results of the 

engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to determine the 

inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and domestic 

employment levels. Labor expenditures 

for the manufacture of a product are a 

function of the labor intensity of the 

product, the sales volume, and an 

assumption that wages in real terms 

remain constant. 

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of each product and the 

manufacturing production costs from 

the engineering analysis to estimate the 

annual labor expenditures in the 

automatic commercial ice maker 

industry. DOE used information gained 

through interviews with manufacturers 

to estimate the portion of the total labor 

expenditures that is attributable to 

domestic labor. 

The production worker estimates in 

this section cover workers only up to 

the line-supervisor level who are 

directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling automatic commercial ice 

makers within an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) facility. Workers 

performing services that are closely 

associated with production operations, 

such as material handling with a 

forklift, are also included as production 

labor. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table V.34 represent the potential 

production employment that could 

result following new and amended 

energy conservation standards. The 

upper end of the results in this table 

estimates the total potential increase in 

the number of production workers after 

amended energy conservation 

standards. To calculate the total 

potential increase, DOE assumed that 

manufacturers continue to produce the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14925 

same scope of covered products in 

domestic production facilities and 

domestic production is not shifted to 

lower-labor-cost countries. Because 

there is a risk of manufacturers 

evaluating sourcing decisions in 

response to amended energy 

conservation standards, the lower end of 

the range of employment results in 

Table V.34 includes the estimated total 

number of U.S. production workers in 

the industry who could lose their jobs 

if all existing production were moved 

outside of the United States. While the 

results present a range of employment 

impacts following the compliance date 

of amended energy conservation 

standards, the discussion below also 

includes a qualitative discussion of the 

likelihood of negative employment 

impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 

employment impacts shown are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 13 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

DOE estimates that in the absence of 

amended energy conservation 

standards, there would be 268 domestic 

production workers involved in 

manufacturing automatic commercial 

ice makers in 2018. Using 2011 Census 

Bureau data and interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 84 percent of automatic 

commercial ice makers sold in the 

United States are manufactured 

domestically. Table V.34 shows the 

range of the impacts of potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

on U.S. production workers in the 

automatic commercial ice maker 

industry. 

TABLE V.34—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER

PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2018 

Base case 1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2018 

(without changes in production locations) .................... 268 268 268 269 269 269 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 

2018 * ............................................................................ .................... 0–(268) 0–(268) 1–(268) 1–(268) 1–(268) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

All examined TSLs show relatively 

minor impacts on domestic employment 

levels relative to total industry 

employment. At all TSLs, most of the 

design options analyzed by DOE do not 

greatly alter the labor content of the 

final product. For example, the use of 

higher efficiency compressors or fan 

motors involve one-time changes to the 

final product, but do not significantly 

change the number of steps required for 

the final assembly. One manufacturer 

suggested that their domestic 

production employment levels would 

only change if market demand 

contracted following higher overall 

prices. However, more than one 

manufacturer suggested that where they 

already have overseas manufacturing 

capabilities, they would consider 

moving additional manufacturing to 

those facilities if they felt the need to 

offset a significant rise in materials 

costs. Provided the changes in materials 

costs do not support the relocation of 

manufacturing facilities, one would 

expect only modest changes to domestic 

manufacturing employment balancing 

additional requirements for assembly 

labor with the effects of price elasticity. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

According to the majority of 

automatic commercial ice maker 

manufacturers interviewed, amended 

energy conservation standards that 

require modest changes to product 

efficiency will not significantly affect 

manufacturers’ production capacities. 

Any redesign of automatic commercial 

ice makers would not change the 

fundamental assembly of the 

equipment, but manufacturers do 

anticipate some potential for additional 

lead time immediately following 

standards associated with changes in 

sourcing of higher efficiency 

components, which may be supply 

constrained. 

One manufacturer cited the 

possibility of a 3- to 6-month shutdown 

in the event that amended standards 

were set high enough to require 

retooling of their entire product line. 

Most of the design options being 

evaluated are already available on the 

market as product options. Thus, DOE 

believes that short of widespread 

retooling, manufacturers would be able 

to maintain manufacturing capacity 

levels and continue to meet market 

demand under amended energy 

conservation standards. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Small business, low volume, and 

niche equipment manufacturers, and 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure substantially different from the 

industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. As discussed in 

section IV.J, using average cost 

assumptions to develop an industry 

cash flow estimate is inadequate to 

assess differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. 

For automatic commercial ice makers, 

DOE identified and evaluated the 

impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on one subgroup: small 

manufacturers. The SBA defines a 

‘‘small business’’ as having 750 

employees or less for NAICS 333415, 

‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing,’’ which includes icemaking machinery manufacturing. 

Based on this definition, DOE identified 

seven manufacturers in the automatic 

commercial ice makers industry that are 

small businesses. 

For a discussion of the impacts on the 

small manufacturer subgroup, see the 

regulatory flexibility analysis in section 

VI.B of this notice and chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

equipment efficiency. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14926 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

67 Information about ASME codes and standards 

can be obtained at: www.asme.org/kb/standards/

standards. 

68http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/

RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm374275.htm). 

69http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/

GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/

FederalStateCooperativePrograms/UCM230336.pdf. 

70 Information on EU RoHS can be found at: 

www.bis.gov.uk/nmo/enforcement/rohs-home. 

During previous stages of this 

rulemaking, DOE identified a number of 

requirements in addition to amended 

energy conservation standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers. The 

following section briefly addresses 

comments DOE received with respect to 

cumulative regulatory burden and 

summarizes other key related concerns 

that manufacturers raised during 

interviews. 

Existing Federal Standards for 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

Several manufacturers commented 

that they had made substantial 

investments in order to comply with the 

previous Federal energy conservation 

standards for batch style automatic 

commercial ice makers, which took 

effect in January 2010. While DOE 

acknowledges the significant investment 

on the part of industry, because the 

proposed compliance date for new and 

amended standards is 2018, there 

should be no direct overlap of 

compliance costs from either standard. 

The residual financial impact of the 

previous energy conservation standards 

manifest themselves in the 2018 

standards MIA as the prevailing 

industry conditions absent new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. This serves as the basis for 

the base-case INPV. 

Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement (CC&E) Rule 

Multiple manufacturers expressed 

concerns about the burden CC&E would 

impose on the automatic commercial ice 

maker industry. CC&E requires testing 

and compliance for a wide array of 

equipment offerings. One manufacturer 

cited the increase in testing burden 

associated with the DOE’s new 

definition of ‘‘basic’’ model, which has 

contributed significantly to the number 

of models considered to be basic. 

Manufacturers worry that testing each 

variation would present a significant 

testing burden, especially for small 

business manufacturers. 

In addition to costs associated with 

DOE CC&E requirements, manufacturers 

cited an array of other certifications as 

being an additional and substantial 

burden. Such certifications include 

codes and standards developed by 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), which include 

standards for compressors, fasteners, 

flow measurement, nuclear, 

environmental control, piping, pressure 

vessels, pumps, storage tanks, and 

more.67 Other critical certification 

programs for manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers 

include those of National Sanitation 

Foundation (NSF), Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL), NRCan, and CEC. A 

new energy efficiency standard put forth 

by the DOE that requires a complete 

product redesign will necessitate 

recertification from the abovementioned programs. Manufacturers are 

concerned about the cumulative testing 

burden associated with such recertifications. 

DOE understands that testing and 

certification requirements may have a 

significant impact on manufacturers, 

and the CC&E burden is identified as a 

key issue in the MIA. DOE also 

understands that CC&E requirements 

can be particularly onerous for 

manufacturers producing low volume or 

highly customized equipment. 

Regarding other certification programs, 

the DOE again acknowledges the 

potential burden associated with 

recertification. However, DOE also 

recognizes that these programs are 

voluntary. 

EPA and ENERGY STAR 

Some manufacturers expressed 

concerns regarding potential conflicts 

with the ENERGY STAR certification 

program. Manitowoc publicly 

commented that certification by the 

ENERGY STAR program is very 

important to their customers for a 

variety of reasons including the 

potential for utility rebates and LEED 

certification. Manitowoc went on to say 

that if DOE’s energy efficiency standard 

level is raised to the max-tech level, 

there would be no room for the ENERGY 

STAR classification and that this could 

be highly disruptive to the industry 

(Manitowoc, No. 42 at pp. 15–16). Due 

to the clear market value of the ENERGY 

STAR program, manufacturers 

expressed concern about the additional 

testing burdens associated with having 

to re-certify products, or alternatively, 

having to forfeit market share by 

offering products that are not ENERGY 

STAR certified. 

DOE realizes that the cumulative 

effect of several regulations on an 

industry may significantly increase the 

burden faced by manufacturers that 

need to comply with multiple 

regulations and certification programs 

from different organizations and levels 

of government. However, DOE notes 

that certain standards, such as ENERGY 

STAR, are optional for manufacturers. 

Other Federal Regulations 

Manufacturers also expressed 

concerns regarding the additional 

burden caused by other Federal 

regulations, including the upcoming 

amended energy conservation standards 

for residential refrigerators and freezers, 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

walk-in coolers and freezers, 

miscellaneous residential refrigeration 

products, and cooking products. 

DOE recognizes the additional burden 

faced by manufacturers that produce 

both automatic commercial ice makers 

in combination with one or many of the 

above-mentioned products. Companies 

that produce a wide range of regulated 

equipment may be faced with more 

capital and equipment design 

development expenditures than 

competitors with a narrower scope of 

production. DOE does attempt to 

quantify the cumulative burden of 

Federal energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers in its manufacturer 

impact analysis (see chapter 12 of TSD). 

However, DOE cannot consider the 

quantitative impacts of amended 

standards that have not yet been 

finalized, such as those for walk-in 

coolers and walk-in freezers. 

State Regulations 

Relating to the CEC codes and 

standards, one manufacturer noted 

California’s 2020 energy policy goals, 

including the reduction of greenhouse 

gas emissions to 1990 levels, as a source 

of additional burden for automatic 

commercial ice maker manufacturers. 

Manufacturers also added that the lead 

limit guidelines (see, for example, 

section 4–101.13(C) of the Food Code 

2013) 68 put forth by the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA), and 

adopted as code by all 50 states,69 carry 

associated compliance costs. The levels 

specified by these guidelines have 

remained unchanged for at least 15 

years. 

International Regulations 

Finally, one manufacturer noted 

additional burden associated with the 

European Union (EU) Restriction on 

Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS), 

which restricts the use of six hazardous 

materials, including lead, mercury, and 

cadmium, in the manufacture of various 

types of electronic and electrical 

equipment.70

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14927 

DOE discusses these and other 

requirements, and includes the full 

details of the cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis, in chapter 12 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Amount and Significance of Energy 

Savings 

DOE estimated the NES by calculating 

the difference in annual energy 

consumption for the base-case scenario 

and standards-case scenario at each TSL 

for each equipment class and summing 

up the annual energy savings for the 

automatic commercial ice maker 

equipment purchased during the 30- 

year 2018 to 2047 analysis period. 

Energy impacts include the 30-year 

period, plus the life of equipment 

purchased in the last year of the 

analysis, or roughly 2018 to 2057. The 

energy consumption calculated in the 

NIA is full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy, 

which quantifies savings beginning at 

the source of energy production. DOE 

also reports primary or source energy 

that takes into account losses in the 

generation and transmission of 

electricity. FFC and primary energy are 

discussed in section IV.H. 

Table V.35 presents the source NES 

for all equipment classes at each TSL 

and the sum total of NES for each TSL. 

Table V.36 presents the energy savings 

at each TSL for each equipment class in 

the form of percentage of the cumulative 

energy use of the equipment stock in the 

base-case scenario. 

TABLE V.35—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AT SOURCE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047 

Equipment class 

Standard level *,** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.010 0.010 0.013 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.006 0.006 0.009 0.013 0.014 

IMH–W–Large–B *** ................................................................................. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ............................................................................ 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ............................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.017 0.032 0.076 0.099 0.105 

IMH–A–Large–B *** .................................................................................. 0.024 0.045 0.095 0.122 0.122

IMH–A–Large–B1 ............................................................................. 0.020 0.040 0.086 0.107 0.107 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ............................................................................. 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.015 0.015 

RCU–Large–B *** ..................................................................................... 0.013 0.013 0.030 0.046 0.047 

RCU–Large–B1 ................................................................................. 0.012 0.012 0.028 0.043 0.045 

RCU–Large–B2 ................................................................................. 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.013 0.024 0.037 0.037 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.002 0.010 0.017 0.022 0.022

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.012 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.008 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.001 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.011 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.072 0.134 0.281 0.374 0.395 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NES rounds to less than 0.001 quads. 

** Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

*** IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2. 

TABLE V.36—CUMULATIVE ENERGY SAVINGS BY TSL AS A PERCENTAGE OF CUMULATIVE BASELINE ENERGY USAGE OF

AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047 

Equipment class 

Base case 

energy 

usage 

TSL savings as percent of baseline usage 

TSL 1 (%) TSL 2 (%) TSL 3 (%) TSL 4 (%) TSL 5 (%) 

IMH–W–Small–B .............................................................. 0.062 4 7 16 16 21 

IMH–W–Med–B ................................................................ 0.089 6 6 10 15 16 

IMH–W–Large–B * ............................................................ 0.026 6 6 6 9 10 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .................................................... 0.017 7 7 7 10 11 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .................................................... 0.009 3 3 3 7 8 

IMH–A–Small–B ............................................................... 0.463 4 7 16 21 23 

IMH–A–Large–B * ............................................................. 0.635 4 7 15 19 19 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ..................................................... 0.490 4 8 17 22 22 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ..................................................... 0.145 3 3 6 11 11 

RCU–Large–B * ................................................................ 0.357 4 4 8 13 13 

RCU–Large–B1 ......................................................... 0.333 4 4 8 13 13 

RCU–Large–B2 ......................................................... 0.024 2 2 7 11 11 

SCU–W–Large–B ............................................................. 0.003 2 5 9 14 14 

SCU–A–Small–B .............................................................. 0.138 1 9 18 27 27 

SCU–A–Large–B .............................................................. 0.092 2 10 19 24 24 

IMH–A–Small–C ............................................................... 0.068 2 5 8 12 17 

IMH–A–Large–C .............................................................. 0.041 4 6 14 19 19 

SCU–A–Small–C .............................................................. 0.073 2 6 9 9 16 

Total .......................................................................... 2.047 4 7 14 18 19 

* IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

71For automatic commercial ice makers, DOE is 

required to review standards at least every five 

years after the effective date of any amended 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(B)) If new 

standards are promulgated, EPCA requires DOE to 

provide manufacturers a minimum of 3 and a 

maximum of 5 years to comply with the standards. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(C)) In addition, for certain 

other types of commercial equipment that are not 

specified in 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(G), EPCA 

requires DOE to review its standards at least once 

every 6 years (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) and 6316(a)), 

and either a 3-year or a 5-year period after any new 

standard is promulgated before compliance is 

required. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4) and 6316(a)) As a 

result, DOE’s standards for automatic commercial 

ice makers can be expected to be in effect for 8 to 

10 years between compliance dates, and its 

standards governing certain other commercial 

equipment, the period is 9 to 11 years. A 9-year 

analysis was selected as representative of the time 

between standard revisions. 

Table V.37 presents energy savings at 

each TSL for each equipment class with 

the FFC adjustment. The NES increases 

from 0.073 quads at TSL 1 to 0.401 

quads at TSL 5. 

TABLE V.37—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS INCLUDING FULL-FUEL-CYCLE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN

2018–2047 

Equipment class 

Standard level *** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TS L5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.010 0.010 0.013 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.006 0.006 0.009 0.014 0.015 

IMH–W–Large–B *** ................................................................................. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ............................................................................ 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ............................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.017 0.033 0.077 0.100 0.107 

IMH–A–Large–B *** .................................................................................. 0.025 0.045 0.096 0.124 0.124

IMH–A–Large–B1 ............................................................................. 0.020 0.041 0.087 0.108 0.108 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ............................................................................. 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.016 0.016 

RCU–Large–B *** ..................................................................................... 0.013 0.013 0.030 0.046 0.048 

RCU–Large–B1 ................................................................................. 0.013 0.013 0.029 0.044 0.045 

RCU–Large–B2 ................................................................................. 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.013 0.025 0.038 0.038 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.002 0.010 0.018 0.022 0.022

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.012 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.008 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.001 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.012 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.073 0.136 0.286 0.380 0.401 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NES rounds to less than 0.001 quads. 

** Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

*** IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2. 

Circular A–4 requires agencies to 

present analytical results, including 

separate schedules of the monetized 

benefits and costs that show the type 

and timing of benefits and costs. 

Circular A–4 also directs agencies to 

consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and 

costs. For this rulemaking, DOE 

undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 

rather than 30 years of product 

shipments. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.71 We would note that 

the review timeframe established in 

EPCA generally does not overlap with 

the product lifetime, product 

manufacturing cycles or other factors 

specific to automatic commercial ice 

makers. Thus, this information is 

presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change 

in DOE’s analytical methodology. The 

NES results based on a 9-year analysis 

period are presented in Table V.38. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

equipment purchased in 2018–2026 

TABLE V.38—NATIONAL FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026 

Equipment class 

Standard level *** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.004 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 

IMH–W–Large–B *** ................................................................................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ............................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ............................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.005 0.009 0.021 0.028 0.029 

IMH–A–Large–B *** .................................................................................. 0.007 0.012 0.026 0.034 0.034

IMH–A–Large–B1 ............................................................................. 0.005 0.011 0.024 0.030 0.030 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ............................................................................. 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.004 

RCU–Large–B *** ..................................................................................... 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.013 0.013 

RCU–Large–B1 ................................................................................. 0.003 0.003 0.008 0.012 0.012 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14929 

TABLE V.38—NATIONAL FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026—Continued 

Equipment class 

Standard level *** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

RCU–Large–B2 ................................................................................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.000 0.004 0.007 0.010 0.010 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.006

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.020 0.037 0.079 0.104 0.110 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NES rounds to less than 0.001 quads. 

** Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

*** IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2. 

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to 

the Nation of the total savings for the 

customers that would result from 

potential standards at each TSL. In 

accordance with OMB guidelines on 

regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A–4, 

section E, September 17, 2003), DOE 

calculated NPV using both a 7-percent 

and a 3-percent real discount rate. The 

7-percent rate is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return on 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and 

reflects the returns on real estate and 

small business capital, including 

corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector, because recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return on 

capital to be near this rate. In addition, 

DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture 

the potential effects of amended 

standards on private consumption. This 

rate represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. It can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (i.e., 

yield on Treasury notes minus annual 

rate of change in the CPI), which has 

averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax 

basis for the last 30 years. 

Table V.39 and Table V.40 show the 

customer NPV results for each of the 

TSLs DOE considered for automatic 

commercial ice makers at both 7-percent 

and 3-percent discount rates. In each 

case, the impacts cover the expected 

lifetime of equipment purchased from 

2018–2047. Detailed NPV results are 

presented in chapter 10 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

The NPV results at a 7-percent 

discount rate for TSL 5 were negative 

for three equipment classes and 

significantly lower than the TSL 3 

results for several other classes. This is 

consistent with the results of LCC 

analysis results for TSL 5, which 

showed significant increase in LCC and 

significantly higher PBPs that were in 

some cases greater than the average 

equipment lifetimes. Efficiency levels 

for TSL 4 were chosen to correspond to 

the highest efficiency level with a 

positive NPV for all classes at a 7- 

percent discount rate. Similarly, the 

criteria for choice of efficiency levels for 

TSL 3, TSL 2, and TSL 1 were such that 

the NPV values for all the equipment 

classes show positive values. The 

criterion for TSL 3 was to select 

efficiency levels with the highest NPV at 

a 7-percent discount rate. Consequently, 

the total NPV for automatic commercial 

ice makers was highest for TSL 3, with 

a value of $0.791 billion (2012$) at a 7- 

percent discount rate. TSL 4 showed the 

second highest total NPV, with a value 

of $0.484 billion (2012$) at a 7-percent 

discount rate. TSL 1, TSL 2 and TSL 5 

have a total NPV lower than TSL 3 or 

4. 

TABLE V.39—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047 

[2012$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.006 0.011 0.025 0.025 (0.002) 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.016 0.016 0.025 0.017 0.019 

IMH–W–Large–B ** .................................................................................. 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ............................................................................ 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ............................................................................ 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.043 0.080 0.177 0.046 0.058 

IMH–A–Large–B ** ................................................................................... 0.070 0.127 0.297 0.256 0.256

IMH–A–Large–B1 ............................................................................. 0.057 0.113 0.274 0.236 0.236 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ............................................................................. 0.014 0.014 0.023 0.020 0.020 

RCU–Large–B ** ...................................................................................... 0.038 0.038 0.082 0.073 0.075 

RCU–Large–B1 ................................................................................. 0.036 0.036 0.078 0.070 0.072 

RCU–Large–B2 ................................................................................. 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.004 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.004 0.029 0.085 0.012 0.012 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.004 0.039 0.052 0.021 0.021

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.004 0.009 0.014 0.011 (0.018) 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.004 0.007 0.016 0.007 0.007 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14930 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.39—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047— 

Continued 

[2012$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.004 0.009 0.013 0.013 (0.062) 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.198 0.368 0.791 0.484 0.370 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NPV rounds to less than $0.001 (2012$). Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

** IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2. 

TABLE V.40—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047 

[2012$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.013 0.023 0.057 0.057 0.010 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.034 0.034 0.054 0.042 0.047 

IMH–W–Large–B** ................................................................................... 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.008

IMH–W–Large–B1 ............................................................................ 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ............................................................................ 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.094 0.176 0.394 0.163 0.190 

IMH–A–Large–B** .................................................................................... 0.152 0.275 0.653 0.596 0.596 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ............................................................................. 0.123 0.245 0.602 0.546 0.546 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ............................................................................. 0.030 0.030 0.051 0.050 0.050 

RCU–Large–B ** ...................................................................................... 0.081 0.081 0.178 0.174 0.179 

RCU–Large–B1 ................................................................................. 0.078 0.078 0.169 0.165 0.170 

RCU–Large–B2 ................................................................................. 0.004 0.004 0.009 0.009 0.009 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.009 0.064 0.190 0.062 0.062 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.010 0.086 0.118 0.062 0.062

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.009 0.019 0.031 0.027 (0.028) 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.009 0.016 0.034 0.018 0.018 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.008 0.021 0.030 0.030 (0.114) 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.430 0.806 1.751 1.238 1.032 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NPV rounds to less than $0.001 (2012$). Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

** IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2. 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analysis period 

are presented in Table V.41 and Table 

V.42. The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of equipment purchased in 

2018–2026. As mentioned previously, 

this information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology or decision 

criteria. 

TABLE V.41—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.003 0.005 0.012 0.012 (0.001) 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.008 0.008 0.012 0.008 0.009 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 .......................................................................... 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 .......................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.021 0.039 0.086 0.023 0.029 

IMH–A–Large–B ...................................................................................... 0.034 0.062 0.143 0.123 0.123 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 ........................................................................... 0.028 0.055 0.132 0.113 0.113 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 ........................................................................... 0.007 0.007 0.011 0.010 0.010 

RCU–Large–B .......................................................................................... 0.018 0.018 0.040 0.036 0.037 

RCU–Large–B–1 ............................................................................... 0.017 0.017 0.038 0.034 0.035 

RCU–Large–B–2 ............................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.014 0.040 0.005 0.005 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.002 0.018 0.025 0.010 0.010

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.005 (0.009) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14931 

TABLE V.41—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026—Continued 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.003 0.003 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.005 0.006 0.006 (0.031) 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.096 0.179 0.381 0.233 0.177 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NPV rounds to less than $0.001 (2012$). Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

TABLE V.42—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026 

Equipment class 

Standard level* 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.005 0.008 0.020 0.020 0.003 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.012 0.012 0.019 0.015 0.017 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................................................................... 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 ................................................................................. 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ................................................................................. 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.034 0.063 0.141 0.058 0.068 

IMH–A–Large–B ...................................................................................... 0.054 0.098 0.230 0.209 0.209 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 .................................................................................. 0.044 0.088 0.211 0.191 0.191 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 .................................................................................. 0.011 0.011 0.018 0.018 0.018 

RCU–Large–B .......................................................................................... 0.029 0.029 0.064 0.062 0.064 

RCU–Large–B–1 ...................................................................................... 0.028 0.028 0.060 0.059 0.061 

RCU–Large–B–2 ...................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.003 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.003 0.023 0.065 0.020 0.020 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.003 0.030 0.041 0.021 0.021

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.003 0.007 0.011 0.010 (0.010) 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.003 0.006 0.012 0.006 0.006 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.010 (0.042) 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.153 0.287 0.617 0.434 0.359 

*A value equal to 0.000 means the NPV rounds to less than $0.001 (2012$). Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

c. Water Savings 

In analyzing energy-saving design 

options for batch type ice makers, one 

option had the additional impact of 

reducing potable water usage for some 

types of batch type ice makers. The 

potable water savings are identified on 

Table V.43. 

TABLE V.43—POTABLE WATER SAVINGS

Equipment class 

National water savings by standard level*,** 

million gallons 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0 0 3,699 3,699 3,699 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–A–Large–B ...................................................................................... 0 0 20,753 20,753 20,753 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 .................................................................................. 0 0 20,753 20,753 20,753 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 .................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 

RCU–063–Large–B .................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 

RCU–064–Large–B–1 .............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 

RCU–065–Large–B–2 .............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 141 141 141 141 141 

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0 0 14,391 14,391 14,391 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0 6,424 6,424 6,424 6,424 

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14932 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.43—POTABLE WATER SAVINGS—Continued 

Equipment class 

National water savings by standard level*,** 

million gallons 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Total .................................................................................................. 141 6,565 45,407 45,407 45,407 

d. Employment Impacts 

In addition to the direct impacts on 

manufacturing employment discussed 

in section V.B.2, DOE develops general 

estimates of the indirect employment 

impacts of proposed standards on the 

economy. As discussed above, DOE 

expects amended energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers to reduce energy bills for 

commercial customers, and the resulting 

net savings to be redirected to other 

forms of economic activity. DOE also 

realizes that these shifts in spending 

and economic activity by automatic 

commercial ice maker owners could 

affect the demand for labor. Thus, 

indirect employment impacts may result 

from expenditures shifting between 

goods (the substitution effect) and 

changes in income and overall 

expenditure levels (the income effect) 

that occur due to the imposition of 

amended standards. These impacts may 

affect a variety of businesses not directly 

involved in the decision to make, 

operate, or pay the utility bills for 

automatic commercial ice makers. To 

estimate these indirect economic effects, 

DOE used an input/output model of the 

U.S. economy using U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (BEA) and BLS data (as 

described in section IV.N of this notice; 

see chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD for 

more details). 

In this input/output model, the 

dollars saved on utility bills from moreefficient automatic commercial ice 

makers are concentrated in economic 

sectors that create more jobs than are 

lost in electric and water utilities sectors 

when spending is shifted from 

electricity and/or water to other 

products and services. Thus, the 

proposed amended energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers are likely to slightly increase the 

net demand for labor in the economy. 

However, the net increase in jobs might 

be offset by other, unanticipated effects 

on employment. Neither the BLS data 

nor the input/output model used by 

DOE includes the quality of jobs. As 

shown in Table V.44, DOE estimates 

that net indirect employment impacts 

from a proposed automatic commercial 

ice makers amended standard are small 

relative to the national economy. 

TABLE V.44—NET SHORT-TERM

CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT

Trial standard 

level 2018 2022 

1 ....................... 19 to 20 ... 100 to 101. 

2 ....................... 36 to 40 ... 192 to 196. 

3 ....................... 75 to 87 ... 431 to 442. 

4 ....................... 44 to 91 ... 506 to 552. 

5 ....................... 34 to 90 ... 518 to 572. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

In performing the engineering 

analysis, DOE considers design options 

that would not lessen the utility or 

performance of the individual classes of 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6316(e)(1)) As 

presented in the screening analysis 

(chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD), DOE 

eliminates from consideration any 

design options that reduce the utility of 

the equipment. For this notice, DOE 

proposes that none of the TSLs 

considered for automatic commercial 

ice makers reduce the utility or 

performance of the equipment. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from amended standards. It directs the 

Attorney General of the United States 

(Attorney General) to determine in 

writing the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6313(d)(4)) To 

assist the Attorney General in making 

such a determination, DOE provided the 

DOJ with copies of this notice and the 

TSD for review. During MIA interviews, 

domestic manufacturers indicated that 

foreign manufacturers have begun to 

enter the automatic commercial ice 

maker industry, but not in significant 

numbers. Manufacturers also stated that 

consolidation has occurred among 

automatic commercial ice makers 

manufacturers in recent years. 

Interviewed manufacturers believe that 

these trends may continue in this 

market even in the absence of amended 

standards. 

DOE does not believe that amended 

standards would result in domestic 

firms moving their production facilities 

outside the United States. The majority 

of automatic commercial ice makers are 

manufactured in the United States and, 

during interviews, manufacturers in 

general indicated they would modify 

their existing facilities to comply with 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

An improvement in the energy 

efficiency of the equipment subject to 

today’s NOPR is likely to improve the 

security of the Nation’s energy system 

by reducing overall demand for energy. 

Reduced electricity demand may also 

improve the reliability of the electricity 

system. As a measure of this reduced 

demand, chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD 

presents the estimated reduction in 

national generating capacity for the 

TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. 

Energy savings from amended 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers could also produce 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

GHGs associated with electricity 

production. Table V.45 provides DOE’s 

estimate of cumulative CO2, NOX, Hg, 

N2O, CH4 and SO2 emissions reductions 

projected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rule. The table 

includes both power sector emissions 

and upstream emissions. The upstream 

emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.K. 

DOE reports annual emissions 

reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14933 

TABLE V.45—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS

[Cumulative for equipment purchased in 2018–2047] 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 5 

Power Sector and Site Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................. 3 .50 6 .52 13 .68 18 .19 19 .19 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................... ¥0 .89 ¥1 .66 ¥3 .49 ¥4 .64 ¥4 .89 

Hg (tons) .......................................................... 0 .01 0 .01 0 .02 0 .03 0 .03 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................ 0 .08 0 .15 0 .31 0 .41 0 .43 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................ 0 .47 0 .88 1 .84 2 .45 2 .58 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................ 5 .31 9 .89 20 .76 27 .60 29 .12 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................. 0 .23 0 .42 0 .89 1 .18 1 .24 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................... 3 .11 5 .80 12 .18 16 .19 17 .08 

Hg (tons) .......................................................... 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .001 0 .001 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................ 0 .00 0 .00 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................ 18 .89 35 .22 73 .93 98 .30 103 .68 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................ 0 .05 0 .09 0 .19 0 .25 0 .27 

Total Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................................. 3 .72 6 .94 14 .57 19 .37 20 .43 

NOX (thousand tons) ....................................... 2 .22 4 .14 8 .69 11 .56 12 .19 

Hg (tons) .......................................................... 0 .01 0 .01 0 .02 0 .03 0 .03 

N2O (thousand tons) ........................................ 0 .08 0 .15 0 .32 0 .42 0 .45 

CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................ 19 .36 36 .09 75 .77 100 .75 106 .27 

SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................ 5 .35 9 .98 20 .95 27 .86 29 .38 

As part of the analysis for this NOPR, 

DOE estimated monetary benefits likely 

to result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for 

each of the TSLs considered. As 

discussed in section IV.L, DOE used 

values for the SCC developed by an 

interagency process. The interagency 

group selected four sets of SCC values 

for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets 

are based on the average SCC from three 

integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent. The fourth set, which 

represents the 95th-percentile SCC 

estimate across all three models at a 3- 

percent discount rate, is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts 

from temperature change further out in 

the tails of the SCC distribution. The 

four SCC values for CO2 emissions 

reductions in 2015, expressed in 2012$, 

are $11.8/ton, $39.7/ton, $61.2/ton, and 

$117.0/ton. These values for later years 

are higher due to increasing emissionsrelated costs as the magnitude of 

projected climate change is expected to 

increase. 

Table V.46 presents the global value 

of CO2 emissions reductions at each 

TSL. DOE calculated domestic values as 

a range from 7 percent to 23 percent of 

the global values, and these results are 

presented in chapter 14 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE V.46—GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC

COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

TSL 

SCC Scenario * 

5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

million 2012$ 

Power Sector and Site Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 24.6 111.2 176.2 342.8 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 45.9 207.3 328.5 639.0 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 96.3 435.2 689.5 1,341.5 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 128.0 578.6 916.8 1,783.6 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 135.1 610.3 967.0 1,881.4 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 1.5 7.0 11.2 21.7 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 2.8 13.1 20.8 40.4 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 6.0 27.5 43.7 84.9 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 7.9 36.5 58.1 112.8 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14934 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.46—GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC

COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS—Continued 

TSL 

SCC Scenario * 

5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 8.4 38.5 61.3 119.0 

Total Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 26.1 118.2 187.4 364.5 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 48.7 220.4 349.3 679.5 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 102.3 462.6 733.2 1,426.3 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 136.0 615.1 974.9 1,896.4 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 143.4 648.8 1,028.3 2,000.4 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $11.8, $39.7, $61.2 and $117.0 per metric ton (2012$). 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to develop rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this NOPR on reducing 

CO2 emissions is subject to change. 

DOE, together with other Federal 

agencies, will continue to review 

various methodologies for estimating 

the monetary value of reductions in CO2

and other GHG emissions. This ongoing 

review will consider the comments on 

this subject that are part of the public 

record for this NOPR and other 

rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this NOPR the most recent values and 

analyses resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

emission reductions anticipated to 

result from amended automatic 

commercial ice makers standards. Table 

V.47 presents the present value of 

cumulative NOX emissions reductions 

for each TSL calculated using the 

average dollar-per-ton values and 7- 

percent and 3-percent discount rates. 

TABLE V.47—PRESENT VALUE OF

NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR

POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

TSL 

3% 

Discount 

rate 

7% 

Discount 

rate 

million 2012$ 

Power Sector and Site Emissions * 

1 ................................ ¥1.8 ¥1.3 

2 ................................ ¥3.4 ¥2.4 

3 ................................ ¥7.2 ¥5.0 

4 ................................ ¥9.5 ¥6.6 

5 ................................ ¥10.1 ¥7.0 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ................................ 4.3 2.1 

2 ................................ 8.0 3.8 

3 ................................ 16.8 8.0 

4 ................................ 22.3 10.7 

5 ................................ 23.6 11.3 

Total Emissions 

1 ................................ 2.5 0.8 

TABLE V.47—PRESENT VALUE OF

NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR

POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS— 

Continued 

TSL 

3% 

Discount 

rate 

7% 

Discount 

rate 

2 ................................ 4.6 1.4 

3 ................................ 9.6 3.0 

4 ................................ 12.8 4.0 

5 ................................ 13.5 4.3 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emission reductions can 

be viewed as a complement to the NPV 

of the customer savings calculated for 

each TSL considered in this NOPR. 

Table V.48 presents the NPV values that 

result from adding the estimates of the 

potential economic benefits resulting 

from reduced CO2 and NOX emissions 

in each of four valuation scenarios to 

the NPV of consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking, at both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent discount rate. The CO2 values 

used in the table correspond to the four 

scenarios for the valuation of CO2

emission reductions presented in 

section IV.L. 

TABLE V.48—AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED

WITH NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$11.8/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Value of 

$39.7/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Value of 

$61.2/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Value of 

$117.0/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.458 0.550 0.620 0.797 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.859 1.031 1.160 1.490 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 1.863 2.223 2.494 3.187 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 1.387 1.866 2.226 3.148 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14935 

TABLE V.48—AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED

WITH NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS—Continued 

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$11.8/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Value of 

$39.7/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Value of 

$61.2/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Value of 

$117.0/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 1.189 1.694 2.074 3.046 

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$11.8/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Value of 

$39.7/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Value of 

$61.2/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

SCC Value of 

$117.0/metric 

ton CO2* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX** 

billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.224 0.317 0.386 0.563 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.418 0.590 0.719 1.049 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.896 1.257 1.527 2.220 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.624 1.103 1.463 2.385 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 0.518 1.023 1.403 2.375 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2012$. The present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium value, which corresponds to $2,639 per ton. 

Although adding the value of 

customer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, the following should be 

considered: (1) the national customer 

savings are domestic U.S. customer 

monetary savings found in market 

transactions, while the values of 

emission reductions are based on 

estimates of marginal social costs, 

which, in the case of CO2, are based on 

a global value; and (2) the assessments 

of customer savings and emissionrelated benefits are performed with 

different computer models, leading to 

different time frames for analysis. For 

automatic commercial ice makers, the 

present value of national customer 

savings is measured for the period in 

which units shipped (2018–2047) 

continue to operate. However, the time 

frames of the benefits associated with 

the emission reductions differ. For 

example, the value of CO2 emission 

reductions in a given year reflects the 

present value of all future climaterelated impacts due to emitting a ton of 

CO2 in that year, out to the year 2100. 

7. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary, in 

determining whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, to 

consider any other factors that the 

Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 

6313(d)(4)) DOE considered LCC 

impacts on identifiable groups of 

customers, such as customers of 

different business types, who may be 

disproportionately affected by any 

amended national energy conservation 

standard level. DOE also considered the 

reduction in generation capacity that 

could result from the imposition of any 

amended national energy conservation 

standard level. 

DOE carried out a RIA, as described 

in the NOPR TSD chapter 17, to study 

the impact of certain non-regulatory 

alternatives that may encourage 

customers to purchase higher efficiency 

equipment and, thus, achieve NES. The 

two major alternatives identified by 

DOE are customer rebates and customer 

tax credits. DOE surveyed the various 

rebate programs available in the United 

States. Typically, rebates are offered for 

commercial sector businesses that 

purchase energy-efficient automatic 

commercial ice makers, typically, 

machines that qualify either for 

ENERGY STAR or CEE certification. 

Rebates offered range from $40 to 

several hundred dollars, depending on 

the size and type of ice maker. Based on 

the incremental costs DOE estimated for 

TSL 1 (equivalent to the ENERGY STAR 

targets that were in existence until early 

in 2013), the rebates offered are 

sufficient to cover the incremental costs 

of meeting the ENERGY STAR levels. 

Given the range of rebates offered, DOE 

elected to model rebates of equivalent to 

60 percent of the full incremental cost 

of the upgrades. 

For the tax credits scenario, DOE did 

not find a suitable program to model the 

scenario. From a consumer perspective, 

the most important difference between 

rebate and tax credit programs is that a 

rebate can be obtained relatively 

quickly, whereas receipt of tax credits is 

delayed until income taxes are filed or 

a tax refund is provided by the IRS. As 

with consumer rebates, DOE assumed 

that consumer tax credits paid 60 

percent of the incremental product 

price, but estimated a different response 

rate. The delay in reimbursement makes 

tax credits less attractive than rebates; 

consequently, DOE estimated a response 

rate that is 80 percent of that for rebate 

programs. 

Table V.49 and Table V.50 show the 

NES and NPV, respectively, for the nonregulatory alternatives analyzed. For 

comparison, the table includes the 

results of the NES and NPV for TSL 3, 

the proposed energy conservation 

standard. Energy savings are expressed 

in quads in terms of primary or source 

energy, which includes generation and 

transmission losses from electricity 

utility sector. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14936 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.49—CUMULATIVE NES OF NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR

AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Policy alternatives Cumulative Primary NES 

quads 

No new regulatory action ............................................................................................................................................. 0 

Customer tax credits .................................................................................................................................................... 0 .145 

Customer rebates ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 .190 

Voluntary energy efficiency targets ............................................................................................................................. 0 

Early replacement ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 

Proposed standards, primary energy (TSL 3) ............................................................................................................. 0 .281 

TABLE V.50—CUMULATIVE NPV OF NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR

AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Policy alternatives 

Cumulative net present value 

billion 2012$ 

7% Discount 3% Discount 

No new regulatory action ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Customer tax credits ................................................................................................................................ 0 .520 1 .011 

Customer rebates .................................................................................................................................... 0 .678 1 .319 

Voluntary energy efficiency targets ......................................................................................................... 0 0 

Early replacement .................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Proposed standards (TSL 3) ................................................................................................................... 0 .791 1 .751 

As shown above, none of the policy 

alternatives DOE examined would 

achieve close to the amount of energy or 

monetary savings that could be realized 

under the proposed amended standard. 

Also, implementing either tax credits or 

customer rebates would incur initial 

and/or administrative costs that were 

not considered in this analysis. 

C. Proposed Standard 

DOE recognizes that when it 

considers amendments to the standards, 

it is subject to the EPCA requirement 

that any new or amended energy 

conservation standard for any type (or 

class) of covered product be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A) and 6313(d)(4)) In 

determining whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens to the greatest extent 

practicable, in light of the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 

6313(d)(4)) The new or amended 

standard must also result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 6316(d)(4)) 

DOE considered the impacts of 

standards at each TSL, beginning with 

the maximum technologically feasible 

level, to determine whether that level 

met the evaluation criteria. If the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most-efficient level 

and undertook the same evaluation until 

it reached the highest efficiency level 

that is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

DOE discusses the benefits and/or 

burdens of each TSL in the following 

sections. DOE bases its discussion on 

quantitative analytical results for each 

TSL including NES, NPV (discounted at 

7 and 3 percent), emission reductions, 

INPV, LCC, and customers’ installed 

price increases. Beyond the quantitative 

results, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification, including how 

technological feasibility, manufacturer 

costs, and impacts on competition may 

affect the economic results presented. 

Table V.51, Table V.52, Table V.53 and 

Table V.54 present a summary of the 

results of DOE’s quantitative analysis for 

each TSL. Results in Table V.51 are 

impacts from equipment purchased in 

the period from 2018–2047. In addition 

to the quantitative results presented in 

the tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification of certain 

customer subgroups that are 

disproportionately affected by the 

proposed standards. Section V.B.7 

presents the estimated impacts of each 

TSL for these subgroups. 

TABLE V.51—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS* 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Cumulative National Energy Savings 2018 through 2047 quads 

Undiscounted values .................... 0.073 ..................... 0.136 ..................... 0.286 ..................... 0.380 ..................... 0.401 

Cumulative National Water Savings 2018 through 2047 billion gallons 

Undiscounted values .................... 0.1 ......................... 6.6 ......................... 45.4 ....................... 45.4 ....................... 45.4 

Cumulative NPV of Customer Benefits 2018 through 2047 2012$ billion 

3% discount rate ........................... 0.430 ..................... 0.806 ..................... 1.751 ..................... 1.238 ..................... 1.032 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14937 

TABLE V.51—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS*—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

7% discount rate ........................... 0.198 ..................... 0.368 ..................... 0.791 ..................... 0.484 ..................... 0.370 

Industry Impacts 

Change in Industry NPV (2012$ 

million).

(8.4) to (8.7) .......... (12.8) to (13.6) ...... (20.9) to (23.9) ...... (19.6) to (30.5) ...... (19.9) to (32.6) 

Change in Industry NPV (%) ........ (8.2) to (8.5) .......... (12.6) to (13.4) ...... (20.5) to (23.5) ...... (19.2) to (30.0) ...... (19.5) to (32.0) 

Cumulative Emissions Reductions 2018 through 2047** 

CO2 (MMt) .................................... 3.72 ....................... 6.94 ....................... 14.57 ..................... 19.37 ..................... 20.43 

NOX (kt) ........................................ 2.22 ....................... 4.14 ....................... 8.69 ....................... 11.56 ..................... 12.19 

Hg (t) ............................................. 0.01 ....................... 0.01 ....................... 0.02 ....................... 0.03 ....................... 0.03 

N2O (kt) ......................................... 0.08 ....................... 0.15 ....................... 0.32 ....................... 0.42 ....................... 0.45 

N2O (kt CO2eq) ............................ 24.28 ..................... 45.26 ..................... 95.01 ..................... 126.32 ................... 133.25 

CH4 (kt) ......................................... 19.36 ..................... 36.09 ..................... 75.77 ..................... 100.75 ................... 106.27 

CH4 (kt CO2eq) ............................. 484.06 ................... 902.37 ................... 1894.29 ................. 2518.64 ................. 2656.69 

SO2 (kt) ......................................... 5.35 ....................... 9.98 ....................... 20.95 ..................... 27.86 ..................... 29.38 

Monetary Value of Cumulative Emissions Reductions 2018 through 2047†

CO2 (2012$ billion) ....................... 0.026 to 0.364 ....... 0.049 to 0.679 ....... 0.102 to 1.426 ....... 0.136 to 1.896 ....... 0.143 to 2.0 

NOX—3% discount rate (2012$ 

million).

2.5 ......................... 4.6 ......................... 9.6 ......................... 12.8 ....................... 13.5 

NOX—7% discount rate (2012$ 

million).

0.8 ......................... 1.4 ......................... 3.0 ......................... 4.0 ......................... 4.3 

Employment Impacts 

Net Change in Indirect Domestic 

Jobs by 2022.

100 to 101 ............. 192 to 196 ............. 431 to 442 ............. 506 to 552 ............. 518 to 572 

* Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

** ‘‘MMt’’ stands for million metric tons; ‘‘kt’’ stands for kilotons; ‘‘t’’ stands for tons. CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same 

global warming potential (GWP). 

† Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. Economic value of 

NOX reductions is based on estimates at $2,639/ton. 

TABLE V.52—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: MEAN LCC SAVINGS

[2012$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

IMH–W–Small–B .................................................................. $199 $215 $328 $328 $49 

IMH–W–Med–B .................................................................... 464 464 587 405 460 

IMH–W–Large–B* ................................................................ 833 833 833 550 582 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ........................................................ 701 701 701 583 607 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ........................................................ 1,260 1,260 1,260 442 500 

IMH–A–Small–B ................................................................... 254 259 396 170 198 

IMH–A–Large–B* ................................................................. 648 633 1,127 994 994 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ......................................................... 590 572 1,168 1,062 1,062 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ......................................................... 960 960 908 627 627 

RCU–Large–B* .................................................................... 875 875 983 870 897 

RCU–Large–B1 ............................................................. 847 847 963 857 882 

RCU–Large–B2 ............................................................. 1,298 1,298 1,277 1,070 1,123 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................................................. 483 687 694 143 149 

SCU–A–Small–B .................................................................. 103 198 396 106 106 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................................................. 140 522 502 240 240 

IMH–A–Small–C ................................................................... 315 314 391 307 (237) 

IMH–A–Large–C .................................................................. 660 744 1,026 524 500 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................................................. 93 140 146 146 (441) 

* LCC results for IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B are a weighted average of the two sub-equipment class level typical 

units shown on the table, using weights provided in TSD chapter 7. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14938 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.53—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: MEDIAN PAYBACK PERIOD

Equipment class 

Standard Level 

years 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

IMH–W–Small–B .................................................................. 1.07 1.26 2.27 2.27 5.42 

IMH–W–Med–B .................................................................... 0.63 0.63 0.85 3.33 3.22 

IMH–W–Large–B* ................................................................ 0.69 0.69 0.69 3.59 3.60 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ........................................................ 0.72 0.72 0.72 3.75 3.77 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ........................................................ 0.58 0.58 0.58 3.10 3.02 

IMH–A–Small–B ................................................................... 1.07 1.22 1.42 4.32 4.24 

IMH–A–Large–B* ................................................................. 0.46 0.49 0.84 2.16 2.16 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ......................................................... 0.46 0.50 0.82 2.08 2.08 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ......................................................... 0.42 0.42 0.94 2.58 2.58 

RCU–Large–B* .................................................................... 0.41 0.41 0.65 2.39 2.44 

RCU–Large–B1 ............................................................. 0.38 0.38 0.62 2.37 2.42 

RCU–Large–B2 ............................................................. 0.75 0.75 1.00 2.70 2.70 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................................................. 0.67 0.76 1.00 3.01 3.00 

SCU–A–Small–B .................................................................. 1.40 1.52 1.56 4.79 4.79 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................................................. 1.37 1.17 1.49 3.72 3.72 

IMH–A–Small–C ................................................................... 0.90 0.90 0.97 2.59 6.83 

IMH–A–Large–C .................................................................. 0.52 0.53 0.69 3.25 3.24 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................................................. 1.13 1.53 1.85 1.85 19.12 

* PBP results for IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B are weighted averages of the results for the two sub-equipment class 

level typical units, using weights provided in TSD chapter 7. 

TABLE V.54—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER TSLS: DISTRIBUTION OF CUSTOMER LCC 

IMPACTS

Category 

Standard Level 

percentage of customers (%) 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

IMH–W–Small–B 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 45.3 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 60.8 34.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 39.2 65.2 96.5 96.5 54.7 

IMH–W–Med–B 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 11.3 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 31.0 31.0 14.3 2.4 2.4 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 69.0 69.0 85.7 82.7 86.3 

IMH–W–Large–B* 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 7.1 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 37.6 37.6 37.6 25.8 22.1 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 62.4 62.4 62.4 65.8 70.8 

IMH–W–Large–B1 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.6 23.8 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 71.4 71.4 71.4 71.3 76.0 

IMH–W–Large–B2 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 29.4 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 66.6 66.6 66.6 16.7 16.7 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 33.4 33.4 33.4 48.1 53.9 

IMH–A–Small–B 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 22.4 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 62.9 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 37.1 68.5 100.0 73.0 77.6 

IMH–A–Large–B* 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 3.6 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 59.8 22.8 6.3 2.1 2.1 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 40.2 77.2 93.7 94.4 94.4 

IMH–A–Large–B1 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 58.6 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 41.5 85.4 100.0 98.8 98.8 

IMH–A–Large–B2 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 16.5 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 66.6 66.6 40.0 13.4 13.4 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 33.4 33.4 60.0 70.2 70.2 

RCU–Large–B* 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 5.2 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 58.1 58.1 18.5 9.5 9.5 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 41.9 41.9 81.5 84.6 85.3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14939 

72Sanstad, A. Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_

theory.pdf. 

TABLE V.54—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER TSLS: DISTRIBUTION OF CUSTOMER LCC 

IMPACTS—Continued 

Category 

Standard Level 

percentage of customers (%) 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

RCU–Large–B1 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 5.1 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 57.2 57.2 17.9 9.0 9.0 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 42.8 42.8 82.1 85.3 85.9 

RCU–Large–B2 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 6.2 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 72.7 72.7 27.3 18.2 18.2 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 27.3 27.3 72.7 74.7 75.7 

SCU–W–Large–B 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.3 48.8 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 71.4 71.4 57.2 14.3 14.3 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 28.6 28.6 42.8 36.4 36.8 

SCU–A–Small–B 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.8 31.8 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 82.9 37.1 11.5 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 17.1 62.9 88.5 68.2 68.2 

SCU–A–Large–B 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.1 34.3 34.3 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 71.4 35.7 7.2 0.0 0.0 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 28.6 64.3 92.7 65.7 65.7 

IMH–A–Small–C 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 72.7 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 77.2 54.3 40.0 31.4 11.5 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 22.8 45.7 60.0 60.7 15.9 

IMH–A–Large–C 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 21.1 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 65.0 45.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 35.0 55.0 85.0 63.7 68.9 

SCU–A–Small–C 

Net Cost (%) ................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.8 

No Impact (%) ............................................................... 73.4 53.3 36.7 36.7 20.0 

Net Benefit (%) ............................................................. 26.6 46.7 63.3 63.3 0.2 

* LCC results for IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B are a weighted average of the two sub-equipment class level typical 

units shown on the table. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade-off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. This undervaluation 

suggests that regulation that promotes 

energy efficiency can produce 

significant net private gains (as well as 

producing social gains by, for example, 

reducing pollution). There is evidence 

that consumers undervalue future 

energy savings as a result of (1) a lack 

of information; (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases (e.g., an inefficient 

ventilation fan in a new building or the 

delayed replacement of a water pump); 

(4) excessive focus on the short term, in 

the form of inconsistent weighting of 

future energy cost savings relative to 

available returns on other investments; 

(5) computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of 

relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence 

in incentives (e.g., renter versus 

building owner, builder versus home 

buyer). Other literature indicates that 

with less than perfect foresight and a 

high degree of uncertainty about the 

future, consumers may trade off these 

types of investments at a higher-thanexpected rate between current 

consumption and uncertain future 

energy cost savings. 

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an amended 

energy conservation standard, DOE has 

posted a paper that discusses the issue 

of consumer welfare impacts of 

appliance energy efficiency standards, 

and potential enhancements to the 

methodology by which these impacts 

are defined and estimated in the 

regulatory process.72 DOE is committed 

to developing a framework that can 

support empirical quantitative tools for 

improved assessment of the consumer 

welfare impacts of appliance standards. 

DOE welcomes comments on 

information and methods to better 

assess the potential impact of energy 

conservation standards on consumer 

choice and methods to quantify this 

impact in its regulatory analysis in 

future rulemakings. 

TSL 5 corresponds to the max-tech 

level for all the equipment classes and 

offers the potential for the highest 

cumulative energy savings through the 

analysis period from 2018 to 2047. The 

estimated energy savings from TSL 5 is 

0.401 quads of energy, and potable 

water savings are 45.4 billion gallons. 

DOE projects a net positive NPV for 

customers valued at $0.370 billion at a 

7-percent discount rate. Estimated 

emissions reductions are 20.4 MMt of 

CO2, up to 12.2 kt of NOX and 0.03 tons 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14940 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

73Two of the typical units modeled for the three 

large batch classes have higher savings. For this 

section of the NOPR, the discussion is limited to 

results for full equipment classes. 

of Hg. The CO2 emissions have a value 

of up to $2.0 billion and the NOX

emissions have a value of up to $7.8 

million at a 7-percent discount rate. 

For TSL 5, with the exception of 

equipment class IMH–A–Small–C and 

SCU–A–Small–C, the mean LCC savings 

for all equipment classes are positive, 

implying a decrease in LCC, with the 

decrease ranging from $49 for the IMH– 

W–Small–B equipment class to $945 for 

the IMH–A–Large–B equipment class.73

Although the mean LCC decreases 

indicate a savings potential for 

commercial ice makers as a whole, the 

results shown on Table V.54 indicates a 

large fraction of customers would 

experience net LCC increases (i.e., LCC 

costs rather than savings) from adoption 

of TSL 5, with 30 to nearly 80 percent 

of customers experiencing net LCC 

increases in six equipment classes. As 

shown on Table V.53, customers in 10 

equipment classes would experience 

payback periods of 3 years or longer. 

At TSL 5, manufacturers may 

experience a loss of INPV due to large 

investments in product development 

and manufacturing capital as nearly all 

products will need substantial redesign 

and existing production lines will need 

to be adapted to produce evaporators 

and cabinets, among other components, 

for the newly compliant designs. Where 

these designs may differ considerably 

from those currently available, this TSL 

also presents a significant testing 

burden. The projected change in INPV 

ranges from a decrease of $32.6 million 

to a decrease of $19.9 million depending 

on the chosen manufacturer markup 

scenario. The upper bound of a $19.9 

million decrease in INPV is considered 

an optimistic scenario for manufacturers 

because it assumes they can maintain 

the same gross margin (as a percentage 

of revenue) on their sales. DOE 

recognizes the risk of large negative 

impacts on industry if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. TSL 5 could 

reduce the INPV for automatic 

commercial ice makers by up to 32.0 

percent if impacts reach the lower 

bound of the range, which represents a 

scenario in which manufacturers cannot 

fully mark up the increased equipment 

costs, and therefore cannot maintain the 

same overall gross margins (as a 

percentage of revenue) they would have 

in the base case. 

In addition to the estimated impacts 

on INPV, the impacts on manufacturing 

capacity and competition are of concern 

at TSL 5. While more than half of the 

manufacturers who produce continuous 

products, already offer at least one 

product that complies with TSL 5, only 

two manufacturers currently produce 

batch commercial ice makers that 

comply with the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 5. This includes one 

small business manufacturer whose 

niche products have among the very 

largest harvest capacities in their 

respective equipment classes and are 

sold in small quantities relative to the 

rest of the industry. In contrast to this 

small business manufacturer, the other 

manufacturer is Hoshizaki, which 

produces more mainstream batch 

products and commands substantial 

market share. 

The concentration of current 

production of batch commercial ice 

makers at TSL 5 presents two issues. 

Hoshizaki holds intellectual property 

covering the design of the evaporator 

used in their batch equipment, which 

limits the range of possible alternative 

paths to achieving the efficiency levels 

for batch equipment specified at TSL 5. 

While the engineering analysis 

identified other means to achieve these 

high efficiencies, given this limitation 

on design options, other manufacturers 

expressed significant doubts regarding 

their ability to do so. Further, DOE’s 

analysis indicates that these efficiency 

levels require the use of permanent 

magnet motors and, for batch 

equipment, drain water heat exchangers. 

DOE was able to identify only one 

supplier of the latter technology, whose 

design is patented. In addition, there is 

currently very limited use of permanent 

magnet motors in commercial ice 

makers; hence, motor suppliers would 

be required to develop and initiate 

production for a broad range of new 

motor designs suitable for automatic 

commercial ice makers. These needs 

could severely impact automatic 

commercial ice maker manufacturers’ 

ability to procure the required 

components in sufficient quantities to 

supply the market. 

Assuming the other paths to achieving 

these efficiency levels prove fruitful, 

TSL 5 would still require that every 

other manufacturer retool their entire 

batch equipment production lines. 

Further, DOE review of the efficiency 

levels of available equipment shows that 

only 13 percent of Hoshizaki’s batch 

products meet the TSL 5 efficiency 

levels, suggesting that the vast majority 

of their production lines would also 

require redesign and retooling. In 

confidential interviews, one 

manufacturer cited the possibility of a 3- 

month to 6-month shutdown in the 

event that amended standards were set 

high enough to require retooling of their 

entire product line. Compounding this 

effect across the industry could severely 

impact manufacturing capacity in the 

interim period between the 

announcement of the standards and the 

compliance date. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis results and weighing the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 5, DOE 

finds that at TSL 5, the benefits to the 

Nation in the form of energy savings and 

emissions reductions plus an increase of 

$0.370 billion in customer NPV are 

weighed against a decrease of up to 32.0 

percent in INPV. While most individual 

customers purchasing automatic 

commercial ice makers built to TSL 5 

standards would be better off than in the 

base case, most would face payback 

periods in excess of 3 years. The limited 

number of manufacturers currently 

producing batch commercial ice makers 

that meet this efficiency level is cause 

for additional concern. After weighing 

the burdens of TSL 5 against the 

benefits, DOE finds TSL 5 not to be 

economically justified. DOE does not 

propose to adopt TSL 5 in this 

rulemaking. 

TSL 4, the next highest efficiency 

level, corresponds to the highest 

efficiency level with a positive NPV at 

a 7-percent discount rate for all 

equipment classes. The estimated 

energy savings from 2018 to 2047 are 

0.380 quads of energy and 45.4 billion 

gallons of potable water—amounts DOE 

deems significant. At TSL 4, DOE 

projects an increase in customer NPV of 

$0.484 billion (2012$) at a 7-percent 

discount rate; estimated emissions 

reductions of 19.4 MMt of CO2, 11.6 kt 

of NOX, and 0.03 tons of Hg. The 

monetary value of these emissions was 

estimated to be up to $1.9 billion for 

CO2 and up to $7.4 million for NOX at 

a 7-percent discount rate. 

At TSL 4, the mean LCC savings are 

positive for all equipment classes. As 

shown on Table V.52, mean LCC savings 

vary from $106 for SCU–A–Small–B to 

$945 for IMH–A–Large–B, which 

implies that, on average, customers will 

experience an LCC benefit. However, as 

shown on Table V.54, for 11 of the 12 

classes, at least some fraction of the 

customers will experience net costs. 

Customers in 3 classes would 

experience net LCC costs of 30 percent 

or more, with the percentage ranging up 

to 49 percent for one equipment class. 

Median payback periods range from 1.9 

years up to 4.8 years, with 7 of the 12 

directly analyzed classes exhibiting 

payback periods over 3 years. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $30.5 

million to a decrease of $19.6 million. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14941 

The impact on manufacturers at TSL 4 

is not significantly different from that at 

TSL 5 as the individual efficiency levels 

for each equipment class at TSL 4 are 

on average not significantly different 

from those at TSL 5, and in several 

instances they are the same. DOE 

recognizes the risk of negative impacts 

at TSL 4 if manufacturers’ expectations 

concerning reduced profit margins are 

realized. If the lower bound of ¥$30.5 

million is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 

4 could result in a net loss of 30.0 

percent in INPV for manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers. 

The impacts on manufacturing 

capacity and competition are of concern 

at TSL 4. While every manufacturer who 

produces continuous equipment offers 

at least one product that complies with 

TSL 4, only two manufacturers 

currently produce batch commercial ice 

makers that comply with the efficiency 

levels specified at TSL 4. This includes 

one small business manufacturer whose 

niche products have among the very 

largest harvest capacities in their 

respective equipment classes and are 

sold in small quantities relative to the 

rest of the industry. In contrast to this 

small business manufacturer, the other 

manufacturer is a larger manufacturer 

which produces more mainstream batch 

products and commands a substantial 

market share. 

The concentration of current 

production at TSL 4 presents two issues. 

One large manufacturer holds 

intellectual property covering the 

evaporator design used in their batch 

equipment, which in turn limits the 

range of possible alternative paths to 

achieving the efficiency levels specified 

at TSL 4. While the engineering analysis 

identified other means to achieve these 

high efficiencies, given this limitation 

on design options, other manufacturers 

expressed significant doubts regarding 

their ability to do so. Further, DOE’s 

analysis indicates that these efficiency 

levels require the use of permanent 

magnet motors and, for most batch 

equipment, drain water heat exchangers. 

DOE was able to identify only one 

supplier of the latter technology, whose 

design is patented. In addition, there is 

currently very limited use of permanent 

magnet motors in commercial ice 

makers; hence, motor suppliers would 

be required to develop and initiate 

production for a broad range of new 

motor designs suitable for automatic 

commercial ice makers. These needs 

could severely impact automatic 

commercial ice maker manufacturers’ 

ability to procure the required 

components in sufficient quantities to 

supply the market. 

Assuming other paths to achieving 

these efficiency levels prove fruitful, 

TSL 4 would still require that every 

other manufacturer retool their entire 

batch equipment production lines. As 

noted above, only 2 manufacturers 

currently produce equipment that meets 

TSL 4 efficiency levels, one of which is 

a large manufacturer. DOE’s review of 

the efficiency levels of available 

equipment shows that only 14 percent 

of the large manufacturer’s batch 

products meet the TSL 4 efficiency 

levels, suggesting the vast majority of 

their production lines would also 

require redesign and retooling. In 

confidential interviews, another 

manufacturer cited the possibility of a 3- 

month to 6-month shutdown in the 

event that amended standards were set 

high enough to require retooling of their 

entire product line. Compounding this 

effect across the industry could severely 

impact manufacturing capacity in the 

interim period between the 

announcement of the standards and the 

compliance date. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis results and weighing the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE 

finds that at TSL 4, the benefits to the 

Nation in the form of energy savings and 

emissions reductions plus an increase of 

$0.484 billion in customer NPV are 

weighed against a decrease of up to 30.0 

percent in INPV. While most individual 

customers purchasing automatic 

commercial ice makers built to TSL 4 

standards would be better off than in the 

base case, customers in 7 of 12 

equipment classes would face payback 

periods in excess of 3 years. The limited 

number of manufacturers currently 

producing batch commercial ice makers 

that meet this efficiency level is cause 

for additional concern. After weighing 

the burdens of TSL 4 against the 

benefits, DOE finds TSL 4 not to be 

economically justified. DOE does not 

propose to adopt TSL 4 in this notice. 

At TSL 3, the next highest efficiency 

level, estimated energy savings from 

2018 to 2047 are 0.286 quads of primary 

energy and water savings are 45.4 

billion gallons—amounts DOE considers 

significant. TSL 3 was defined as the set 

of efficiencies with the highest NPV for 

each analyzed equipment class. At TSL 

3, DOE projects an increase in customer 

NPV of $0.791 billion at a 7-percent 

discount rate, and an increase of $1.751 

billion at a 3-percent discount rate. 

Estimated emissions reductions are 14.6 

MMt of CO2, up to 8.7 kt of NOX and 

0.02 tons of Hg at TSL 3. The monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

was estimated to be up to $1.4 billion 

at TSL 3, while NOX emission 

reductions at a 7-percent discount rate 

were valued at up to $5.5 million. 

At TSL 3, nearly all customers for all 

equipment classes are shown to 

experience positive LCC savings. As 

shown on Table V.54, the percent of 

customers experiencing a net cost 

rounds to 0 in all but two classes— 

SCU–A–Large–B with 0.1 percent and 

IMH–W–Small–B with 3.5 percent of 

customers exhibiting a net cost. The 

payback period for IMH–W–Small–B is 

2.3 years, while for all other equipment 

classes the median payback periods are 

1.9 years or less. LCC savings range from 

$146 for SCU–A–Small–C to over $1,100 

for IMH–A–Large–B. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $23.9 

million to a decrease of $20.9 million. 

The three largest manufacturers, who 

together represent an estimated 95 

percent of the market, currently produce 

a combined 38 compliant batch 

products at TSL 3. Many of the gains in 

efficiency needed to meet the standards 

proposed at TSL 3 can be achieved 

using higher efficiency components as 

opposed to the redesign of systems 

manufactured in-house and as such 

require little change to existing 

manufacturing capital. The lack of 

green-field redevelopment or significant 

recapitalization mitigates the risk of 

disruption to manufacturing capacity in 

the interim period between 

announcement of the energy 

conservation standards and the 

compliance date. 

At TSL 3, the monetized CO2

emissions reduction values range from 

$0.102 to $1.426 billion. The monetized 

CO2 emissions reduction at $39.7 per 

ton in 2012$ is $0.463 billion. The 

monetized NOX emissions reductions 

calculated at an intermediate value of 

$2,639 per ton in 2012$ are $3 million 

at a 7-percent discount rate and $9.6 

million at a 3-percent rate. These 

monetized emissions reduction values 

were added to the customer NPV at 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rates to 

obtain values of $2.223 billion and 

1.257 billion, respectively, at TSL 3. The 

total customer and emissions benefits 

are highest at TSL 3. 

Nearly all customers are expected to 

experience net benefits from equipment 

built to TSL 3 levels. The payback 

periods for TSL 3 are expected to be 2.3 

years, or less. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis results and weighing the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 3, DOE 

believes that setting the standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers at TSL 

3 represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14942 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

economically justified. TSL 3 is 

technologically feasible because the 

technologies required to achieve these 

levels already exist in the current 

market and are available from multiple 

manufacturers. TSL 3 is economically 

justified because the benefits to the 

Nation in the form of energy savings, 

customer NPV at 3 percent and at 7 

percent, and emissions reductions 

outweigh the costs associated with 

reduced INPV and potential effects of 

reduced manufacturing capacity. 

Therefore, DOE proposes the adoption 

of amended energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers at TSL 3. 

DOE specifically seeks comment on 

the magnitude of the estimated decline 

in INPV at TSL 3 compared to the 

baseline, and whether this impact could 

risk industry consolidation. DOE also 

specifically requests comment on 

whether DOE should adopt TSL 4 or 5 

and why., DOE may reexamine the 

proposed level depending on the nature 

of the information it receives during the 

comment period and adjust its final 

levels in response to that information. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that today’s 

standards address are as follows: 

1. There is a lack of consumer 

information and/or information 

processing capability about energy 

efficiency opportunities in the 

automatic commercial ice maker market. 

2. There is asymmetric information 

(one party to a transaction has more and 

better information than the other) and/ 

or high transactions costs (costs of 

gathering information and effecting 

exchanges of goods and services). 

3. There are external benefits resulting 

from improved energy efficiency of 

automatic commercial ice makers that 

are not captured by the users of such 

equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to environmental 

protection and energy security that are 

not reflected in energy prices, such as 

reduced emissions of GHGs. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

requires that DOE prepare an RIA on 

today’s rule and that OIRA in OMB 

review this rule. DOE presented to OIRA 

for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA. DOE has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the TSD for this 

rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3821 

(Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 

is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, ORIA has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s NOPR is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003 to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR at 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site (http://energy.gov/

gc/downloads/executive-order-13272- 

consideration-small-entities-agencyrulemaking). 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

For manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers, the 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 small business size 

standards to determine whether any 

small entities would be subject to the 

requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 

30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 

FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and 

codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size 

standards are listed by NAICS code and 

industry description and are available 

at: www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Manufacturing of automatic 

commercial ice makers is classified 

under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing,’’ which includes icemaking machinery manufacturing. The 

SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees 

or less for an entity to be considered as 

a small business in this category. 

During its market survey, DOE used 

available public information to identify 

potential small manufacturers. DOE’s 

research involved industry trade 

association membership directories 

(including AHRI), public databases (e.g., 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14943 

74See www.ahridirectory.org/ahriDirectory/

pages/home.aspx. 

75See http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_

dsbs.cfm. 

76See www.hoovers.com/. 

AHRI Directory,74 the SBA Database 75), 

individual company Web sites, and 

market research tools (e.g., Hoovers 

reports 76) to create a list of companies 

that manufacture or sell equipment 

covered by this rulemaking. DOE also 

asked stakeholders and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any other small manufacturers during 

manufacturer interviews and at DOE 

public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly 

available data and contacted select 

companies on its list, as necessary, to 

determine whether they met the SBA’s 

definition of a small business 

manufacturer of covered automatic 

commercial ice makers. DOE screened 

out companies that do not offer 

equipment covered by this rulemaking, 

do not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign-owned. 

DOE identified seven small domestic 

businesses manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers operating in the 

United States. DOE contacted each of 

these companies, but only one accepted 

the invitation to participate in a 

confidential manufacturer impact 

analysis interview with DOE 

contractors. 

2. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

DOE estimates that the seven small 

domestic manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers identified by 

DOE account for approximately 5 

percent of industry shipments. While 

small business manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers have 

small overall market share, some hold 

substantial market share in specific 

equipment classes. Several of these 

smaller firms specialize in producing 

industrial ice machines and the covered 

equipment they manufacture are 

extensions of existing product lines that 

fall within the range of capacity covered 

by this rule. Others serve niche markets. 

Most have substantial portions of their 

business derived from equipment 

outside the scope of this rulemaking, 

but are still considered small businesses 

based on the SBA limits for number of 

employees. 

At the proposed level, small business 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers are expected to face negative 

impacts on INPV that are more than 

three times as severe as those felt by the 

industry at large: A loss of 78.6 percent 

of INPV for small businesses alone as 

compared to a loss of 23.5 percent for 

the industry at large. Where conversion 

costs are driven by the number of 

platforms requiring redesign at a 

particular standard level, small business 

manufacturers may be 

disproportionately affected. Product 

conversion costs including the 

investments made to redesign existing 

equipment to meet new or amended 

standards or to develop entirely new 

compliant equipment, as well as 

industry certification costs, do not scale 

with sales volume. As small 

manufacturers’ investments are spread 

over a much lower volume of 

shipments, recovering the cost of 

upfront investments is proportionately 

more difficult. 

Similarly, capital conversion costs 

may disproportionately affect small 

business manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers. Capital 

conversion costs are projected to be 

highest in the year preceding standards 

as manufacturers retrofit production 

lines to make compliant equipment. In 

this year, capital conversion costs are 

estimated to represent 97 percent of 

typical capital expenditures for small 

businesses, as compared to 34 percent 

for the industry as a whole. Where the 

covered equipment from several small 

manufacturers are adaptations of larger 

platforms with capacities above the 

4,000 lb ice/24 hour threshold, it may 

not prove economical for them to 

retrofit an entire production line to meet 

standards that only affect one product. 

In confidential interviews, 

manufacturers indicated that many 

design options evaluated in the 

engineering analysis (e.g., higher 

efficiency motors and compressors) 

would require them to purchase more 

expensive components. In many 

industries, small manufacturers 

typically pay higher prices for 

components due to smaller purchasing 

volumes while their large competitors 

receive volume discounts. However, this 

effect is diminished for the automatic 

commercial ice maker manufacturing 

industry for two distinct reasons. One 

reason relates to the fact that the 

automatic commercial ice maker 

industry as a whole is a low volume 

industry. In confidential interviews, 

manufacturers indicated that they have 

little influence over their suppliers, 

suggesting the volume of their 

component orders is similarly 

insufficient to receive substantial 

discounts. The second reason relates to 

the fact that, for most small businesses, 

the equipment covered by this 

rulemaking represents only a fraction of 

overall business. Where small 

businesses are ordering similar 

components for non-covered equipment, 

their purchase volumes may not be as 

low as is indicated by the total unit 

shipments for small businesses. For 

these reasons, it is expected that any 

volume discount for components 

enjoyed by large manufacturers would 

not be substantially different from the 

prices paid by small business 

manufacturers. 

To estimate how small manufacturers 

would be potentially impacted, DOE 

developed specific small business 

inputs and scaling factors for the GRIM. 

These inputs were scaled from those 

used in the whole industry GRIM using 

information about the product portfolios 

of small businesses and the estimated 

market share of these businesses in each 

equipment class. DOE used this 

information in the GRIM to estimate the 

annual revenue, EBIT, R&D expense, 

and capital expenditures for a typical 

small manufacturer and to model the 

impact on INPV. DOE then compared 

these impacts to those modeled for the 

industry at large. The results are shown 

on Table VI.1 and Table VI.2. 

TABLE VI.1—COMPARISON OF SMALL BUSINESS MANUFACTURERS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER INPV TO

THAT OF THE INDUSTRY AT LARGE BY TSL UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN MARKUP SCENARIO* 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Industry at Large—Impact on INPV ($2012) ....................... $(8.4) $(12.8) $(20.9) $(19.6) $(19.9) 

Industry at Large—Impact on INPV (%) .............................. (8.2)% (12.6)% (20.5)% (19.2)% (19.5)% 

Small Businesses—Impact on INPV ($2012) ...................... $(1.8) $(2.9) $(3.9) $(4.1) $(4.5) 

Small Businesses—Impact on INPV (%) ............................. (35.4)% (57.0)% (76.6)% (80.5)% (88.4)% 

*Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14944 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VI.2—COMPARISON OF SMALL BUSINESS MANUFACTURERS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER INPV TO

THAT OF THE INDUSTRY AT LARGE BY TSL UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF EBIT MARKUP SCENARIO

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Industry at Large—Impact on INPV ($2012) ....................... $(8.7) $(13.6) $(23.9) $(30.5) $(32.6) 

Industry at Large—Impact on INPV (%) .............................. (8.5)% (13.4)% (23.5)% (30.0)% (32.0)% 

Small Businesses—Impact on INPV ($2012) ...................... $(1.8) $(3.0) $(4.0) $(4.6) $(5.1) 

Small Businesses—Impact on INPV (%) ............................. (35.4)% (58.9)% (78.6)% (90.3)% (100.2)% 

*Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being promulgated 

today. 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The primary alternatives to the 

proposed rule are the other TSLs 

besides the one being considered today, 

TSL 3. DOE explicitly considered the 

role of manufacturers, including small 

manufacturers, in its selection of TSL 3 

rather than TSLs 4 or 5. Though higher 

TSLs result in greater energy savings for 

the country, they would place 

significant burdens on manufacturers. 

Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD contains 

additional information about the impact 

of this rulemaking on manufacturers. 

In addition to the other TSLs being 

considered, chapter 17 of the NOPR 

TSD and Section V.B.7 include reports 

on a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). 

For automatic commercial ice makers, 

the RIA discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) No change in standard; 

(2) customer rebates; (3) customer tax 

credits; (4) manufacturer tax credits; and 

(5) early replacement. While these 

alternatives may mitigate to some 

varying extent the economic impacts on 

small entities compared to the amended 

standards, DOE determined that the 

energy savings of these regulatory 

alternatives could be approximately 

one-third to one-half less than the 

savings that would be expected to result 

from adoption of the amended standard 

levels. Because of the significantly 

lower savings, DOE rejected these 

alternatives and proposes to adopt the 

amended standards set forth in this 

rulemaking. 

However, DOE seeks comment and, in 

particular, data on the impacts of this 

rulemaking upon small businesses. (See 

Issue 10 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment’’ in section VII.E of this 

NOPR.) 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers must certify to 

DOE that their equipment comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedures for automatic commercial 

ice makers, including any amendments 

adopted for those test procedures. DOE 

has established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial/industrial 

equipment, including automatic 

commercial ice makers. 76 FR 12422 

(March 7, 2011). The collection-ofinformation 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 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) DOE has 

determined that the proposed rule fits 

within the category of actions included 

in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and 

otherwise meets the requirements for 

application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 

1021, appendix B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) 

and appendix B, B(1)-(5). The proposed 

rule fits within the category of actions 

because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, and for which 

none of the exceptions identified in CX 

B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made 

a CX determination for this rulemaking, 

and DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this proposed rule. DOE’s CX 

determination for this proposed rule is 

available at http://energy.gov/nepa/

downloads/cx-008014-categoricalexclusion-determination. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR at 13735. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of today’s proposed 

rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 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; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14945 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). 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 section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 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 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result 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. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/downloads/unfundedmandates-reform-actintergovernmental-consultation. 

Although today’s proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Specifically, the proposed rule 

will likely result in a final rule that 

could require expenditures of $100 

million or more. Such expenditures may 

include: (1) Investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by automatic commercial 

ice makers manufacturers in the years 

between the final rule and the 

compliance date for the new standards; 

and (2) incremental additional 

expenditures by customers to purchase 

higher efficiency automatic commercial 

ice makers, starting at the compliance 

date for the applicable standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) 

The content requirements of section 

202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private 

sector mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this NOPR and the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the NOPR TSD for 

this proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, DOE is 

obligated to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives before promulgating a rule 

for which a written statement under 

section 202 is required. (2 U.S.C. 

1535(a)) DOE is required to select from 

those alternatives the most cost-effective 

and least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the proposed 

rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise, or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o) and 6313(d), this 

proposed rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers that are designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that DOE has 

determined to be both technologically 

feasible and economically justified. A 

full discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

the TSD for today’s proposed rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

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 

(Mar. 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under guidelines established 

by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. 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 NOPR under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14946 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

today’s regulatory action, which sets 

forth proposed energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers, is not a significant energy 

action because the proposed standards 

are not likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the proposed rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer-reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions. 70 FR at 2667 (Jan. 14, 

2005). 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report,’’ dated February 2007, has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES 

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this rulemaking. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. Please 

note that foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE as 

soon as possible by contacting Ms. 

Edwards to initiate the necessary 

procedures. Please also note that those 

wishing to bring laptops into the 

Forrestal Building will be required to 

obtain a property pass. Visitors should 

avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 

45 minutes. Persons can attend the 

public meeting via webinar. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s Web site at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/

ruleid/29. 

Participants are responsible for 

ensuring their systems are compatible 

with the webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

rulemaking. In addition, any person 

may buy a copy of the transcript from 

the transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14947 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to 

submit printed copies. No facsimiles 

(faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues. 

1. Standards Compliance Dates 

EPCA requires that the amended 

standards established in this rulemaking 

must apply to equipment that is 

manufactured on or after 3 years after 

the final rule is published in the Federal 

Register unless DOE determines, by 

rule, that a 3-year period is inadequate, 

in which case DOE may extend the 

compliance date for that standard by an 

additional 2 years. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)(C)) 

For the NOPR analyses, DOE assumed 

a 3-year period to prepare for 

compliance. DOE requests comments on 

the January 1, 2018 effective date, and 

whether a January 1, 2018 effective date 

provides an inadequate period for 

compliance and what economic impacts 

would be mitigated by a later effective 

date. 

DOE also requests comment on 

whether the 3-year period is adequate 

for manufacturers to obtain more 

efficient components from suppliers to 

meet proposed revisions of standards. 

More discussion on this topic can be 

found in Section IV.B.1.g of today’s 

NOPR. 

2. Utilization Factors 

The utilization factor represents the 

percent of time that an ice maker 

actively produces ice. Ice maker usage is 

measured in terms of kilowatt-hours per 

100 lb/24 hours, whereas subsequent 

analyses require annual energy usage in 

kilowatt-hours. Thus, a usage factor is 

required to translate the potential 

energy usage into estimated annual 

usage. In the Framework document, the 

Department presented a series of factors 

for each type of building that represents 

an ice maker market segment, and all 

were set to 0.5, meaning all building 

types would be modeled with a 

utilization factor indicating that 

equipment runs one-half of the time. 

The Stakeholders pointed out that not 

all building segments should be at 0.5, 

but DOE did not receive any data or 

information that DOE can use to 

differentiate the utilization factor by 

building type. DOE requests data for 

individual building types. More 

discussion on this topic can be found in 

Section IV.G.3 of today’s NOPR. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14948 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3. Baseline Efficiency 

For this notice, DOE chose continuous 

machine baselines at sufficiently high 

energy use levels that they exclude 

almost no equipment. DOE based the 

baselines on online data from the AHRI 

database. DOE requests comments on 

the development of continuous type 

equipment base efficiency levels and on 

the availability of data on which to 

create continuous machine baselines. 

More discussion on this topic can be 

found in Section IV.D.2.a of today’s 

NOPR. 

4. Screening Analysis 

DOE requests comment on the 

screening analysis and, specifically, the 

design options DOE screened out of the 

rulemaking analysis. 

DOE considered whether design 

options were technologically feasible; 

practicable to manufacture, install, or 

service; had adverse impacts on product 

utility or product availability; or had 

adverse impacts on health or safety. See 

Section IV.C of today’s NOPR and 

chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD for further 

discussion of the screening analysis. 

5. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

DOE seeks comments on the 

Maximum Technologically Feasible 

levels proposed in Table III.2 and Table 

III.3 of today’s notice. More discussion 

on this topic can be found in Section 

IV.D.2.e of today’s NOPR. 

6. Markups to Determine Price 

DOE identified three major 

distribution channels through which 

automatic commercial ice maker 

equipment is purchased by the enduser: (1) Manufacturer to end-user 

(direct channel); (2) manufacturer to 

wholesale distributor to end-user 

(wholesaler channel); and (3) 

manufacturer to distributor to dealer or 

contractor to end-user (contractor 

channel). DOE currently uses 

mechanical contractor data to estimate 

the contribution of local dealers or 

contactors to end-user prices. DOE 

requests specific input to improve the 

cost estimation for the local dealer or 

contractor component of markups. More 

discussion on this topic can be found in 

Section IV.E of today’s NOPR. 

7. Equipment Life 

For the NOPR analyses, DOE used an 

8.5 years average life for all equipment 

classes, with analyses based on a 

lifetime distribution averaging 8.5 years. 

(TSD chapter 9 discusses the 

development of the distribution.) In 

comments on the preliminary analysis, 

one stakeholder stated that continuous 

machines might have shorter life spans. 

DOE requests specific information to 

determine whether continuous and 

batch types should be analyzed using 

different equipment life assumptions, 

and if so, what they would be. More 

discussion on this topic can be found in 

Section IV.G.8 of today’s NOPR. 

8. Installation Costs 

Stakeholders commented that higher 

efficiency equipment would incur 

additional installation costs when 

compared to the baseline equipment. 

DOE requests specificity with respect to 

this comment, with specific information 

on design options that will increase 

installation costs and specific 

information to enable DOE to adjust 

installation costs appropriately. More 

discussion on this topic can be found in 

Section IV.G.2.a of today’s NOPR. 

9. Open- Versus Closed-Loop 

Installations 

Stakeholders commented that some 

localities in the U.S. have instituted 

local ordinances or laws precluding 

installation of ice makers in open-loop 

configurations. DOE requests 

stakeholder assistance in quantifying 

the impact of local regulations on the 

prevalence of open-loop installations. 

More discussion on this topic can be 

found in Section IV.D.3.c of today’s 

NOPR. 

10. Ice Maker Shipments by Type of 

Equipment 

DOE’s shipments forecast is based on 

a single snapshot of shipments by the 

type of equipment. Stakeholders at the 

preliminary analysis phase suggested 

that the equipment mix may be 

changing over time. DOE requests 

additional data concerning shipment 

trends/forecasts. More discussion on 

this topic can be found in Section 

IV.H.1 of today’s NOPR. 

11. Intermittency of Manufacturer R&D 

and Impact of Standards 

One manufacturer reported that a 

previous round of standards required 

nearly all of the company’s engineering 

resources for between 1 and 2 years. 

Where manufacturers may divert 

existing R&D resources to compliance 

related R&D efforts, DOE requests 

additional comment on the impact on 

innovation of compliance related R&D 

efforts. Specifically, DOE requests 

comment on how to quantify this 

impact on innovation. More discussion 

on this topic can be found in Section 

IV.J of today’s NOPR. 

12. INPV Results and Impact of 

Standards 

Based on weighing of data, DOE is 

recommending TSL 3 for the new and 

amended automatic commercial ice 

maker standards. DOE recognizes that 

new and amended standards will have 

impacts on industry net present value 

results. DOE specifically seeks comment 

on the magnitude of the estimated 

decline in INPV at TSL 3 compared to 

the baseline, and what impact this may 

have on manufacturers. More discussion 

on this topic can be found in Section 

V.B.2 of today’s NOPR. 

13. Small Businesses 

During the Framework and February 

2012 preliminary analysis public 

meetings, DOE received many 

comments regarding the potential 

impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on small 

business manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers. DOE 

incorporated this feedback into its 

analyses for the NOPR and has 

presented its results in this notice and 

the NOPR TSD. However, DOE seeks 

comment and, in particular, additional 

data, in its efforts to quantify the 

impacts of this rulemaking on small 

businesses. More discussion on this 

topic can be found in Section IV.J.3.d of 

today’s NOPR. 

14. Consumer Utility and Performance 

DOE requests comment on whether 

there are features or attributes of the 

more energy-efficient automatic 

commercial ice makers, including any 

potential changes to the evaporator 

design that would result in changes to 

the ice style or changes in the chassis 

size, that manufacturers would produce 

to meet the standards in this proposed 

rule that might affect how they would 

be used by consumers. DOE requests 

comment specifically on how any such 

effects should be weighed in the choice 

of standards for the automatic 

commercial ice makers for the final rule. 

More discussion on this topic can be 

found in Section V.B.3 of today’s NOPR. 

15. Analysis Period 

For this rulemaking, DOE analyzed 

the effects of this proposal assuming 

that the automatic commercial ice 

makers would be available to purchase 

for 30 years and undertook a sensitivity 

analysis using 9 years rather than 30 

years of product shipments. The choice 

of a 30-year period of shipments is 

consistent with the DOE analysis for 

other products and commercial 

equipment. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14949 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards. We are seeking input, 

information and data on whether there 

are ways to further refine the analytic 

timeline. More discussion on this topic 

can be found in Section IV.H.1 of 

today’s NOPR. 

16. Social Cost of Carbon 

DOE solicits comment on the 

application of the new SCC values used 

to determine the social benefits of CO2

emissions reductions over the 

rulemaking analysis period. (The 

rulemaking analysis period covers from 

2018 to 2047 plus the appropriated 

number of years to account for the 

lifetime of the equipment purchased 

between 2018 and 2047.) In particular, 

the agency solicits comment on the 

agency’s derivation of SCC values after 

2050 where the agency applied the 

average annual growth rate of the SCC 

estimates in 2040–2050 associated with 

each of the four sets of values. More 

discussion on this topic can be found in 

Section IV.L.1 of today’s NOPR. 

17. Remote to Rack Equipment 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

found that some high-capacity RCU–RCLarge-C ice makers are solely designed 

to be used with compressor racks and 

the racks’ associated condensers. DOE 

requests comment and supporting data 

on the overall market share of these 

units and any expected market trends. 

More discussion on this topic can be 

found in Section IV.B.1.f of today’s 

NOPR. 

18. Design Options Associated With 

Each TSL 

Section V.A.1 of today’s NOPR 

discusses the design options associated 

with each TSL, for each analyzed 

product class. DOE requests comment 

and data related to the required 

equipment size increases associated 

with the design options at each TSL 

levels. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD 

contains full descriptions of the design 

options and DOE’s analyses for the 

equipment size increase associated with 

the design options selected. DOE also 

requests comments and data on the 

efficiency gains associated with each set 

of design options. Chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD contains DOE’s analyses of 

the efficiency gains for each design 

option considered. Finally, DOE 

requests comment and data on any 

utility impacts associated with each set 

of design options, such as potential icestyle changes. 

19. Standard Levels for Batch-Type Ice 

Makers Over 2,500 lbs Ice/24 Hours 

DOE requests comment and data on 

the viability of the proposed standard 

levels selected for batch-type ice makers 

with harvest capacities from 2,500 to 

4,000 lb ice/24 hours. The proposed 

standard levels are discussed in Section 

V.A.2 of today’s NOPR, and prior 

comments on standards for batch-type 

ice makers with harvest capacities from 

2,500 to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours are 

discussed in Section IV.B.1.b of today’s 

NOPR. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Commercial equipment, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 7, 

2014. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

431 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

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 431.136 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.136 Energy conservation standards 

and their effective dates. 

(a) All basic models of commercial ice 

makers must be tested for performance 

using the applicable DOE test procedure 

in § 431.134, be compliant with the 

applicable standards set forth in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section, and be certified to the 

Department of Energy under 10 CFR 

part 429. 

(b) Each cube type automatic 

commercial ice maker with capacities 

between 50 and 2,500 pounds per 24- 

hour period manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2010 and before [DATE 

THREE YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION 

OF FINAL RULE], shall meet the 

following standard levels: 

Equipment type Type of cooling Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy 

use 

kWh/100 lb ice 

Maximum condenser water use* 

gal/100 lb ice 

Ice-Making Head .................................................................. Water ................ <500 

≥500 and <1,436 

≥1,436 

7.8–0.0055H** 

5.58–0.0011H 

4.0 

200–0.022H. 

200–0.022H. 

200–0.022H. 

Air ..................... <450 

≥450 

10.26–0.0086H 

6.89–0.0011H 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) ............. Air ..................... <1,000 

≥1,000 

8.85–0.0038H 

5.1 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor .................. Air ..................... <934 

≥934 

8.85–0.0038H 

5.3 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Self-Contained ..................................................................... Water ................ <200 

≥200 

11.40–0.019H 

7.6 

191–0.0315H. 

191–0.0315H. 

Air ..................... <175 

≥175 

18.0–0.0469H 

9.8 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

* Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

** H = rated harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given rated harvest rate. 

Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). 

(c) Each batch type automatic 

commercial ice maker with capacities 

between 50 and 4,000 pounds per 24- 

hour period manufactured on or after 

[DATE THREE YEARS AFTER 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14950 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], shall 

meet the following standard levels: 

Equipment type Type of cooling Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy 

use 

kWh/100 lb ice* 

Maximum condenser water use** 

gal/100 lb ice 

Ice-Making Head .................................................................. Water ................ <500 

≥500 and <1,436 

≥1,436 and <2,500 

≥2,500 and <4,000 

5.84–0.0041H 

3.88–0.0002H 

3.6 

3.6 

200–0.022H. 

200–0.022H. 

200–0.022H 

145. 

Ice-Making Head .................................................................. Air ..................... <450 

≥450 and <875 

≥875 and <2,210 

≥2,210 and <2,500 

≥2,500 and <4,000 

7.70–0.0065H 

5.17–0.0008H 

4.5 

6.89–0.0011H 

4.1 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) .......... Air ..................... <1,000 

≥1,000 and <4,000 

7.52—0.0032H 

4.3 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor .................. Air ..................... <934 

≥934 and <4,000 

7.52–0.0032H 

4.5 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Self-Contained ..................................................................... Water ................ <200 

≥200 and <2,500 

≥2,500 and <4,000 

8.55–0.0143H 

5.7 

5.7 

191–0.0315H. 

191–0.0315H. 

112. 

Self-Contained ..................................................................... Air ..................... <175 

≥175 and <4,000 

12.6–0.0328H 

6.9 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

* H = rated harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given rated harvest rate. 

** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). 

(d) Each continuous type automatic 

commercial ice maker with capacities 

between 50 and 4,000 pounds per 24- 

hour period manufactured on or after 

[DATE THREE YEARS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], shall 

meet the following standard levels: 

Equipment type Type of cooling Rated harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy 

use 

kWh/100 lb ice* 

Maximum condenser water use** 

gal/100 lb ice 

Ice-Making Head .................................................................. Water ................ <900 

≥900 and <2,500 

≥ 2,500 and 4,000 

6.08–0.0025H 

3.8 

3.8 

160–0.0176H. 

160–0.0176H. 

116. 

Ice-Making Head .................................................................. Air ..................... <700 

≥700 and <4,000 

9.24–0.0061H 

5.0 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing (but Not Remote Compressor) .......... Air ..................... <850 

≥850 and <4,000 

7.50–0.0034H 

4.6 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor .................. Air ..................... <850 

≥850 and <4,000 

7.65–0.0034H 

4.8 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Self-Contained ..................................................................... Water ................ <900 

≥900 and <2,500 

≥2,500 and <4,000 

7.28–0.0027H 

4.9 

4.9 

153–0.0252H. 

153–0.0252H. 

90. 

Self-Contained ..................................................................... Air ..................... <700 

≥700 and <4,000 

9.20—0.0050H 

5.7 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

* H = rated harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given rated harvest rate. 

** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). 

[FR Doc. 2014–05566 Filed 3–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2