Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 154 August 11, 2014 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Refrigerated Bottled or 

Canned Beverage Vending Machines; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46908 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0045] 

RIN 1904–AD07 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Refrigerated Bottled or 

Canned Beverage Vending Machines 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to amend its test 

procedure for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines 

(BVM) in order to update the referenced 

method of test to ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010, eliminate the 

requirement to test at the 90 °F ambient 

test condition, create a provision for 

testing at the lowest application product 

temperature, and incorporate provisions 

to account for the impact of low power 

modes on measured daily energy 

consumption (DEC). This notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) also 

proposes several amendments and 

clarifications to the DOE test procedure 

to improve the repeatability and remove 

ambiguity from the current BVM test 

procedure. DOE will hold a public 

meeting to receive and discuss 

comments on this NOPR. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this NOPR 

before and after the public meeting, but 

no later than October 27, 2014. See 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

details. 

DOE will hold a public meeting on 

Tuesday, September 16, 2014, from 9 

a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The 

meeting will also be broadcast as a 

Webinar. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room GH–019, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. Persons can attend the 

public meeting via webinar. For more 

information, refer to the Public 

Participation section near the end of this 

notice. 

Comments may be submitted using 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: BVM2013TP0045@

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–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

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

buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx/productid/24. This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this notice on the regulations.gov site. 

The regulations.gov Web page will 

contain simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. See section V for 

information on how to submit 

comments through regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590, Email: 

refrigerated_beverage_vending_

machines@ee.doe.gov. 

In the Office of General Counsel, 

contact Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of General 

Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, (202) 586–1777, Email: 

Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Minor Clarifications and Amendments 

to the DOE Test Procedure 

1. Updating the Referenced Method of Test 

2. Eliminating Testing at the 90 °F Ambient 

Test Condition 

3. Test Procedure for Combination Vending 

Machines 

4. Loading of BVM Models When 

Conducting the DOE Test Procedure 

5. Specifying the Characteristics of the 

Standard Product 

6. Clarifying the Next-to-Vend Beverage 

Temperature Test Condition 

7. Defining ‘‘Fully Cooled’’ 

8. Placement of Thermocouples During 

Testing 

9. Establishing Testing Provisions at the 

Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

10. Clarifications to Certification and 

Reporting Requirements 

11. Treatment of Certain Accessories 

During Testing 

a. Money-Processing Equipment 

b. Interior Lighting 

c. External Customer Display Signs, Lights, 

or Digital Screens 

d. Anti-Sweat and Other Electric 

Resistance Heaters 

e. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps 

f. Illuminated Temperature Displays 

g. Condenser Filters 

h. Security Covers 

i. Coated Coils 

j. General Purpose Outlets 

k. Crankcase Heaters and Electric 

Resistance Heaters for Cold Weather 

B. Summary of the Test Procedure 

Revisions to Account for Low Power 

Modes 

1. Characteristics of Low Power Modes 

2. Comments Received by Interested 

Parties 

3. DOE’s Proposed Low Power Mode Test 

Provisions 

a. Definitions Related to the Low Power 

Mode Test Procedure 

b. Potential Low Power Mode Test 

Methods Based on Physical Testing 

c. Potential Low Power Mode Test Methods 

Using a Combination of Physical Testing 

for Accessory Low Power Mode and 

Calculated Credits for Refrigeration Low 

Power Mode 

d. Refrigeration Low Power Mode 

Verification Test Protocol 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46909 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

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). 

3Because Congress included BVMs in Part A of 

Title III of EPCA, the consumer product provisions 

of Part A (not the industrial equipment provisions 

of Part A–1) apply to BVMs. DOE placed the 

regulatory requirements specific to BVMs in Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 

431, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Program for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment’’ as a matter 

of administrative convenience based on their type 

and will refer to BVMs as ‘‘equipment’’ throughout 

this document because of their placement in 10 CFR 

part 431. Despite the placement of BVMs in 10 CFR 

part 431, the relevant provisions of Title A of EPCA 

and 10 CFR part 430, which are applicable to all 

product types specified in Title A of EPCA, are 

applicable to BVMs. See 74 FR 44914, 44917 (Aug. 

31, 2009). DOE proposes to amend 10 CFR 431.291 

to clarify this point by specifying that the regulatory 

provisions of 10 CFR 430.33 and 430.34 and 

subparts D and E of 10 CFR part 430 are applicable 

to BVMs. DOE notes that, because the procedures 

in Parts 430 and 431 for petitioning the Department 

for and obtaining a test procedure waiver are 

substantively the same (79 FR 26591, 26601(May 9, 

2014)) the regulations for applying for a test 

procedure waiver for BVMs are those found at 10 

CFR 431.401 rather than those found at 430.27. 

e. DOE’s Proposed Low Power Mode Test 

Method 

f. Equipment with Multiple Energy Use 

States 

IV. Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’ 

or ‘‘the Act’’), Public Law 94–163 (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified) 

established the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ 2 As part of this 

program, EPCA directed DOE to 

prescribe energy conservation standards 

for refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines (BVMs), 

which are the subject of today’s notice. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(v)) 3

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

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

Federal energy conservation standards; 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. Subject to certain criteria 

and conditions, DOE is required to 

develop test procedures to measure the 

energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of each 

covered equipment type. (42 U.S.C. 

6293) Manufacturers of covered 

equipment must use the prescribed DOE 

test procedure as the basis for certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and 

when making representations about the 

efficiency of the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE 

must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the equipment 

complies with any relevant standards 

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

6295(s)) 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered equipment, 

including beverage vending machines. 

EPCA provides in relevant part that any 

test procedures prescribed or amended 

under this section shall be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

measure energy efficiency, energy use, 

or estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered unit of equipment during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use and shall not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)) 

In addition, if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

it must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to 

amend a test procedure, DOE must 

determine to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

measured energy efficiency or measured 

energy use of any covered unit of 

equipment as determined under the 

existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency or measured energy 

use of a covered product, DOE must 

amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard accordingly. (42 

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

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1), the 

Secretary of Energy (Secretary) shall 

review test procedures for all covered 

products at least once every 7 years and 

either amend the test procedures (if the 

Secretary determines that amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements of 

42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) or publish a 

determination in the Federal Register 

not to amend them. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A)) 

Pursuant to this requirement, DOE has 

reviewed the BVM test procedure and 

has determined that the test procedure 

could be amended to improve testing 

accuracy of covered refrigerated bottled 

or canned beverage vending machines. 

As such, DOE is proposing amendments 

to its test procedure and presents these 

amendments in this NOPR. 

B. Background 

EPCA requires the test procedures for 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines to be based on 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 32.1– 

2004 (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1– 

2004), ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned 

or Other Sealed Beverages.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(15)) In December 2006, DOE 

published a final rule establishing a test 

procedure for beverage vending 

machines, among other products and 

equipment (the 2006 BVM test 

procedure final rule). 71 FR 71340, 

71355 (Dec. 8, 2006). In that final rule, 

consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(15), 

DOE adopted ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004 as the DOE test procedure, 

with a modification to ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2004 to test equipment 

with dual nameplate voltages at the 

lower of the two voltages only. 71 FR 

71355 (Dec. 8, 2006). 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 

specifies a method for determining the 

capacity of vending machines, referred 

to as ‘‘vendible capacity,’’ which 

essentially consists of the maximum 

number of standard sealed beverages a 

vending machine can hold for sale. In 

the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, 

however, DOE adopted the ‘‘refrigerated 

volume’’ measure in section 5.2, 

‘‘Refrigerated Volume Calculation,’’ of 

ANSI/Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) HRF–1–2004 

(ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004) in addition 

to the ‘‘vendible capacity’’ measure, as 

referred to in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004. 71 FR 71355 (Dec. 8, 2006). 

DOE adopted ‘‘refrigerated volume’’ as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46910 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the primary measure of capacity for 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines because of the variety 

of dispensing mechanisms and storage 

arrangements among similar machines 

that may lead to potentially different 

refrigerated volumes for different 

machines with the same vendible 

capacity. In addition, EPCA has 

historically used upper limits on energy 

use as a function of volume for the 

purposes of establishing energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration 

equipment. Id. 

In the 2006 BVM test procedure final 

rule, DOE determined that section 5.2 of 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004, which 

addresses the measurement of 

refrigerated volume in household 

freezers, is also applicable to beverage 

vending machines and is more 

appropriate than the language for 

measurement of volume in household 

refrigerators of section 4.2 of ANSI/

AHAM HRF–1–2004. Specifically, 

section 5.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004 includes provisions for 

specific compartments and features that 

are typically found in refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines, similar to what is found in 

freezers. Therefore, DOE adopted 

‘‘refrigerated volume’’ in lieu of 

‘‘vendible capacity’’ as the dimensional 

metric for beverage vending machines in 

the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule. 

Id. 

Since the publication of the 2006 

BVM test procedure final rule, ASHRAE 

has published an update to the ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1 test procedure. 

The most recent version is ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010, which 

includes changes aligning it with the 

nomenclature and methodology used in 

the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule 

(71 FR 71355 (Dec. 8, 2006)) and the 

2009 BVM energy conservation 

standards final rule (74 FR 44914 (Aug. 

31, 2009)). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2010 removes the definitions of 

‘‘bottled’’ and ‘‘canned’’ and includes 

the portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF–1– 

2004 that were incorporated by 

reference in the 2006 BVM test 

procedure final rule, in a new Appendix 

C for measuring refrigerated volume. 

DOE believes that the aforementioned 

changes are largely editorial and do not 

affect the method of test or measured 

energy consumption values of any 

covered equipment. 

AHAM has also updated its HRF–1 

test standard since the publication of 

the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule. 

The most recent version, AHAM HRF– 

1–2008, includes changes to the 

refrigerated volume measurement 

portion of the standard, reorganizes 

some sections for simplicity and 

usability, and combines the sections for 

the measurement of refrigerated volume 

of refrigerators and the measurement of 

the refrigerated volume of freezers. 

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

DOE is proposing to amend its test 

procedure for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines to 

update and clarify the test procedure. 

Specifically, DOE proposes to (1) 

Update the referenced method of test to 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010; (2) 

eliminate the requirement to test at the 

90 °F ambient test condition; (3) clarify 

the test procedure for combination 

vending machines; (4) clarify the 

requirements for loading of BVM 

models under the DOE test procedure; 

(5) specify the characteristics of a 

standard test package; (6) clarify the 

average next-to-vend beverage 

temperature test condition; (7) provide a 

definition of ‘‘fully cooled;’’ (8) specify 

placement of thermocouples during the 

DOE test procedure; (9) establish 

provisions for testing at the lowest 

application product temperature; (10) 

clarify the certification and reporting 

requirements for covered beverage 

vending machines; and (11) clarify the 

treatment of certain accessories during 

the DOE test procedure. These proposed 

clarifications and amendments would 

be effective 30 days after the publication 

of a final rule amending the BVM test 

procedure in the Federal Register. The 

clarified BVM test procedure will be 

placed in a new appendix, Appendix A 

to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431. 

Manufacturers will be required to use 

Appendix A to demonstrate compliance 

with existing energy conservation 

standards for beverage vending 

machines. 

In addition, this test procedure NOPR 

proposes amendments that are intended 

to be used with the promulgation of any 

amended energy conservation standards 

for refrigerated beverage vending 

machines and will be included as a new 

Appendix B to subpart Q of 10 CFR 431. 

These amendments include 

incorporating provisions to account for 

the impact of low power modes. 

Manufacturers would be required to 

use any amended test procedure 

adopted in Appendix B to be in 

compliance with DOE’s energy 

conservation standards, as well as for 

labeling or other representations as to 

the energy use of any covered 

equipment, beginning on the 

compliance date of any final rule 

establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines that are set based on the 

amended test procedure. The ongoing 

BVM energy conservation standards 

rulemaking will use any amendments 

established as part of this test procedure 

rulemaking in its energy conservation 

standards analyses and, therefore, use of 

the test procedures established in 

Appendix B would be required on the 

compliance date of the amended energy 

conservation standards promulgated as 

a result of that rulemaking (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–STD–0022). Prior to the 

compliance date of any such amended 

standards, manufacturers must continue 

to use the test procedure found in 

Appendix A to show compliance with 

existing DOE energy conservation 

standards and for representations 

concerning the energy use of covered 

equipment. However, manufacturers 

may elect to use the amended BVM test 

procedure in Appendix B established as 

a result of this rulemaking prior to its 

compliance date to demonstrate 

compliance with any future, amended 

standards. Manufacturers who choose to 

use the amended test procedure early 

must ensure that their equipment 

satisfies any applicable amended energy 

conservation standards. In other words, 

manufacturers may elect to use the 

amended test procedure only if they 

also elect to comply with the amended 

energy conservation standards prior to 

the established compliance date. 

Finally, DOE is proposing 

amendments to 10 CFR 429.52(b) with 

regards to reporting requirements, 

including a clarifying amendment that 

the standard for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines is 

based on DEC. DOE is also proposing 

similar clarifying amendments to the 

energy conservation standards found in 

10 CFR 431.296. 

III. Discussion 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing 

several minor amendments to clarify 

DOE’s test procedure for refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines. DOE is also proposing several 

amendments related to the impact of 

low power modes. To make clear the 

applicability of these amendments, DOE 

is proposing to reorganize the existing 

DOE test procedure into two new 

appendices, Appendix A and Appendix 

B, to 10 CFR 431.294. 

Appendix A would contain the 

provisions established in the 2006 BVM 

test procedure final rule and any 

clarifying amendments proposed in this 

NOPR. Appendix A would be used 

beginning 30 days after publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register 

until the compliance date of any 

amended standards. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46911 

4A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop test procedures for beverage 

vending machines (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

STD–0022, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). This particular notation 

refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Royal 

Vendors, Inc.; (2) appearing in document number 

11 of the docket; and (3) appearing on page 3 of that 

document. 

The proposed amendments found in 

Appendix A are discussed in Section 

III.A and include provisions in the 

following areas: 

(1) Updating the referenced method of 

test to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1– 

2010; 

(2) eliminating testing at the 90 °F 

ambient test condition; 

(3) clarifying the test procedure for 

combination vending machines; 

(4) clarifying the requirements for 

loading BVM models under the DOE test 

procedure; 

(5) clarifying the specifications of the 

test package; 

(6) clarifying the next-to-vend 

beverage temperature test condition; 

(7) providing a definition for ‘‘fully 

cooled;’’ 

(8) specifying placement of 

thermocouples during the DOE test 

procedure; 

(9) establishing testing provisions at 

the lowest application product 

temperature; 

(10) clarifying certification and 

reporting requirements; and 

(11) clarifying the treatment of certain 

accessories when conducting the DOE 

test procedure. 

Appendix B would include all of the 

amendments proposed in Appendix A 

and, in addition, provisions for testing 

low power modes. The test procedures 

found in Appendix B would be used in 

conjunction with any amended 

standards set as a result of the ongoing 

BVM energy conservation standard 

rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2013– 

BT–STD–0022). Section III.B 

summarizes the proposed revisions to 

the test procedure that would be 

included in the amended test procedure 

in Appendix B. 

As part of the current rulemaking on 

the energy conservation standards for 

refrigerated beverage vending machines, 

DOE held a public meeting on June 20, 

2013, to present its Framework 

document (www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EERE–2013–BT– 

STD–0022–0001) and to receive 

comments from interested parties. 

In formulating today’s NOPR, DOE 

considered the comments received in 

response to the Framework document 

and incorporated recommendations, 

where appropriate, that applied to the 

test procedure. Where applicable, 

comments received in response to the 

BVM Framework document that 

addressed DOE’s proposed test 

procedure amendments are presented in 

sections III.A and III.B, along with 

DOE’s response and justification. 

In addition, DOE provides 

amendments to 10 CFR part 429, 

‘‘Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement for Consumer Products and 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment,’’ 

and part 431, subpart Q, ‘‘Refrigerated 

Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending 

Machines.’’ 

A. Minor Clarifications and 

Amendments to the DOE Test Procedure 

DOE held a public meeting on June 

20, 2013, to present its Framework 

document and to receive comments 

from interested parties. In reviewing 

these comments and considering 

revisions to DOE’s test procedure for 

beverage vending machines, DOE 

determined that there are several 

provisions of the DOE test procedure 

that may require clarification. In order 

to clarify the Department’s test 

procedures, DOE proposes to amend 

subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431 by moving 

most of the existing test procedures for 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines from 10 CFR 431.294 

to a new Appendix A to subpart Q of 10 

CFR part 431. In Appendix A, DOE also 

proposes to incorporate nine 

amendments to clarify and update the 

current DOE test procedure for beverage 

vending machines. These clarifications 

and amendments therefore would be 

effective 30 days after publication of a 

final rule in the Federal Register. This 

section of the NOPR discusses the 

specific test procedure provisions that 

require clarification, DOE’s proposed 

amendments, and the comments 

received on these topics. 

1. Updating the Referenced Method of 

Test 

The current DOE test procedure for 

refrigerated beverage vending machines 

incorporates by reference two industry 

test procedures, ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2004 and ANSI/AHAM 

HRF–1–2004, which established a 

method of testing for beverage vending 

machines and a method for determining 

refrigerated volume, respectively. Each 

of these industry test procedures has 

been updated since the publication of 

the DOE test procedure in 2006. The 

most current versions are ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 and 

AHAM HRF–1–2008. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 

was amended from the 2004 version to 

include new definitions and 

nomenclature established by DOE in the 

2009 BVM final rule. These changes 

include removing references to specific 

sealed-bottle package designs such as 

‘‘bottled’’ or ‘‘canned,’’ revising the 

scope, and incorporating a new 

Appendix C, ‘‘Measurement of 

Volume,’’ which consists of certain 

portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004 

for measuring the refrigerated volume. 

Specifically, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004 incorporated the portions of 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004 currently 

referenced in the DOE test procedure, 

section 5.2 (excluding subsections 

5.2.2.2 through 5.2.2.4), which describes 

the method for determining refrigerated 

volume for residential freezers, as well 

as section 5.1, which describes the 

purpose of the section. These new 

amendments make the ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010 test procedure 

identical to the DOE test procedure 

established in the 2006 BVM test 

procedure final rule. As the 

amendments to ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010 are primarily 

editorial, they do not affect the tested 

DEC of covered equipment. DOE is 

proposing to update the industry test 

method incorporated by reference to 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 for 

the measurement of DEC and vendible 

capacity. 

In the 2013 BVM Framework 

document, DOE requested comment 

regarding adoption of an updated test 

procedure for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines. 

During the comment period, DOE 

received no opposing comments to this 

proposal. Royal Vendors, Inc. (Royal) 

and the National Automatic 

Merchandising Association (NAMA) 

commented in support of updating the 

DOE test procedure to reference ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010. (Royal, 

No. 11 at p. 3; 4 NAMA, No. 8 at p. 2) 

Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. 

(AMS) commented that it had no 

objection to the use of the ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 standard. 

(AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) Royal and NAMA 

commented that the test procedure 

should use ANSI-approved technical 

standards because deviations from 

portions of standards create confusion 

regarding clarity of test results, create an 

unfair advantage for underperforming 

models and manufacturers, and create 

potential for confusion among 

consumers attempting to understand 

and compare the tested performance of 

different BVM models. (Royal, No. 11 at 

p. 4; and NAMA, No. 8 at p. 3) Royal 

also commented that any changes made 

to the test procedure should be within 

the confines of the ASHRAE standard 

because that standard is established 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46912 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5 DOE recently issued a final rule amending its 

regulations governing petitions for waiver and 

interim waiver from DOE test procedures for 

consumer products and commercial and industrial 

equipment. 79 FR 26591 (May 9, 2014). This final 

rule carries an effective date of June 9, 2014. 

6 DOE defines a Class B refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine to mean any 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 

machine not considered to be Class A, and is not 

a combination vending machine. DOE defines a 

Class A refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine as any refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine that is fully 

cooled and is not a combination vending machine. 

(See 10 CFR 431.292) Class B refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines are, therefore, 

not fully-cooled machines and are typically referred 

to in the industry as ‘‘zone-cooled.’’ DOE found in 

its preliminary analysis for the concurrent energy 

conservation standards rulemaking that class B 

machines are often installed outside (DOE estimates 

that about 25% are installed outside), whereas Class 

A machines are rarely, if ever, installed outside. 

from a consensus process and reliance 

on it will prevent confusion from 

varying test standards. (Royal No. 7 at 

p. 31) 

EPCA requires the test procedures for 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines to be based on ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(15)) In addition, EPCA 

requires DOE to develop test procedures 

that represent an average energy use 

cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)) When an industry test 

procedure does not adequately represent 

the energy use of a covered unit of 

equipment under a representative cycle 

of use, DOE has the authority to amend 

the test procedure with respect to that 

covered equipment type if DOE 

determines that the amended test 

procedure would more accurately or 

fully reflect the representative use of 

that product, without being unduly 

burdensome. (42 U.S.C 6293(b)(1)) DOE 

believes that certain amendments are 

necessary to adequately characterize the 

energy use of covered BVM models, as 

discussed in section III.B. 

Since DOE published the 2006 BVM 

test procedure final rule, AHAM has 

released a new version of the AHAM 

HRF–1 test method, which reorganizes 

and simplifies the test method as 

presented in ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004. 

The revised AHAM HRF–1 test method, 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2008, combines 

sections 4, 5, and 6, which relate to 

measuring the refrigerated volume of 

refrigerators and freezers, into one 

section describing methods for 

determining the refrigerated volume of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, wine 

chillers, and freezers. This unified and 

simplified method includes several 

changes regarding the inclusion or 

exclusion of certain special features 

from the determination of refrigerated 

volume such that DOE believes AHAM 

HRF–1–2008 has the potential to yield 

refrigerated volume values that differ 

slightly from those taken using the 

method in the current DOE test 

procedure. DOE considered proposing 

to adopt AHAM HRF–1–2008 as the 

method for computing refrigerated 

volume in the amended test procedure. 

DOE does not believe, however, that the 

updated AHAM HRF–1–2008 test 

procedure has sufficient additional 

merit compared to the volume 

calculation method included in ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 to justify 

the additional burden on manufacturers. 

Instead, DOE proposes to adopt 

Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2010 as the volume measurement 

methodology in its amended test 

procedure. Adopting Appendix C of 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 will 

allow manufacturers to reference a 

single document containing all 

information needed to conduct the DOE 

test procedure. As such, DOE proposes 

to remove ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004 

from the documents incorporated by 

reference in 10 CFR 431.293. 

In response to the 2013 BVM 

Framework document, AMS commented 

that the AHAM volume calculation is 

difficult to evaluate for its type of 

equipment. (AMS, No. 7 at p. 79) DOE 

understands AMS’s comment, but notes 

that the determination of volume must 

be consistent for all covered equipment 

to allow for comparability and 

consistent application of the standards 

across equipment. DOE notes that if the 

method for determining refrigerated 

volume is inappropriate or impossible 

for any BVM basic models, the 

manufacturer of that equipment should 

request a waiver in accordance with the 

provisions in subpart V to 10 CFR part 

431. Any petitioner for a waiver of a test 

procedure should note why the volume 

calculation in the DOE test procedure 

cannot be applied and include any 

alternate test procedure known to the 

petitioner. See section 431.401 of 10 

CFR part 431 for the requirements of 

submitting petitions for waiver of test 

procedures.5

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to update its test procedure to 

incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the referenced 

method of test for the measurement of 

refrigerated volume in its test procedure 

from section 5 of ANSI/AHAM HRF–1– 

2004 to Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 

3.1–2010. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

the methodology in Appendix C of 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 for 

the measurement of refrigerated volume 

is more appropriate for beverage 

vending machines than the 

methodology outlined in section 4 of 

AHAM HRF–1–2008. 

2. Eliminating Testing at the 90 °F 

Ambient Test Condition 

Both ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1– 

2004, the test method incorporated by 

reference in the current DOE test 

procedure, and ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010, the test method 

DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference in the amended test procedure 

as discussed in section III.A.1, specify 

two tests: one at an ambient condition 

of 75 °F ± 2 °F temperature and 45 

percent ± 5 percent relative humidity 

(‘‘the 75 °F ambient test condition’’), 

and the other at an ambient condition of 

90 °F ± 2 °F temperature and 65 percent 

± 5 percent relative humidity (‘‘the 

90 °F ambient test condition’’). By 

incorporating by reference ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004, DOE’s 

current test procedure for refrigerated 

beverage vending machines requires 

testing at both the 75 °F ambient test 

condition and 90 °F ambient test 

condition. In the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking that culminated 

in the 2009 BVM final rule, however, 

DOE determined to use only the 75 °F 

ambient test condition for the purposes 

of demonstrating compliance with 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. The data taken at the 90 °F 

ambient test condition are not used for 

DOE regulatory purposes. 74 FR 44914, 

44920 (Aug. 31, 2009). 

In the 2013 BVM Framework 

document, DOE requested comment on 

eliminating the requirement to test units 

at the 90 °F ambient test condition. 

NAMA and Royal agreed with the 

elimination of the test method using the 

90 °F ambient test condition. (NAMA, 

No. 8 at p. 2; Royal, No. 11 at p. 3) AMS 

and the Wittern Group, Inc. (Wittern) 

agreed with the elimination of the 

requirement to test at 90 °F ambient test 

condition. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 2; Wittern, 

No. 16 at p. 2) Wittern added that it did 

not see any benefit in rating machines 

at two temperatures and that the change 

would benefit the consumer by making 

it easier to compare machines. (Wittern, 

No. 16 at p. 2) 

The California Investor-Owned 

Utilities (CA IOUs) opposed the 

complete elimination of the 

methodology used to measure 

performance at the 90 °F ambient test 

condition, stating that the 90 °F ambient 

test condition better evaluates the 

performance of equipment installed 

outdoors and requested that DOE 

maintain it for Class B equipment.6 (CA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46913 

7 Joint Comment refers to the written comment 

submitted by the Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project, the Alliance to Save Energy, the American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships, Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance, and the Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council in Docket No. EERE–2013– 

BT–STD–0022. 

IOUs, No. 19 at pp. 4 and 5) The CA 

IOUs further requested that the Class B 

equipment MDEC at the 90 °F ambient 

test condition be included in DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Database 

because such information would be 

useful to consumers and purchasers of 

Class B units to be installed in outdoor 

settings. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5) The 

Joint Comment 7 encouraged DOE to 

maintain the requirement to test Class B 

units at 90 °F because the 75 °F ambient 

test may not adequately reflect the 

performance of units installed outdoors 

and noted that performance at high 

ambient temperatures may become a 

more significant issue with the 

increased adoption of alternative 

refrigerants. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at 

p. 1) The Joint Comment encouraged 

DOE to maintain the 90 °F ambient test 

condition for Class B machines and 

require the associated MDEC to be 

reported and included in the 

Compliance Certification Database for 

the use of customers purchasing units to 

be installed outdoors and energy 

efficiency program managers. (Joint 

Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs also commented that it 

assumes manufacturers are continuing 

to test at the 90 °F ambient test 

condition, which remains in ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1, to satisfy the 

requirements of the industry-developed 

test procedure and to understand how 

their equipment performs at these 

conditions. Therefore, according to the 

CA IOUs, there would be little 

additional test burden created by 

continuing to require testing at the 90 °F 

ambient condition in the DOE test 

procedure because manufacturers will 

already be testing at 90 °F for industry 

purposes. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5) 

Finally, the CA IOUs submitted to DOE 

two reports prepared by testing 

laboratories at Southern California 

Edison to further DOE’s understanding 

of the effect of ambient temperature on 

BVM energy use, and further 

commented that energy use was 

increased by almost 25 percent for an 

opaque door machine and almost 50 

percent for a transparent door unit 

tested at a higher ambient temperature. 

(CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 5) 

DOE is proposing to amend its test 

procedure to eliminate the requirement 

to perform a test at the 90 °F ambient 

test condition as described in ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 and 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010. 

DOE understands that the 90 °F test is 

used primarily to represent and evaluate 

the performance of some units that may 

be installed outdoors; however, as 

mentioned above, the performance of a 

beverage vending machine at the 90 °F 

ambient test condition is not currently 

used for DOE regulatory purposes and is 

not required to be reported to 

demonstrate compliance of covered 

equipment. Therefore, DOE does not see 

a need to maintain the 90 °F test 

condition as part of the DOE test 

procedure. 

In response to the Joint Comment’s 

concern regarding increasing use of 

alternative refrigerants, DOE 

acknowledges that equipment with 

carbon dioxide refrigerant, which have 

recently become available in the U.S. 

market, may in general have 

significantly different energy 

performance characteristics at the 90 °F 

ambient test condition when compared 

to machines with hydrofluorocarbon 

(HFC) refrigerants such as HFC–134a. 

However, as conditions above 75 °F and 

conditions below 75 °F are equally 

representative of conditions 

encountered by equipment installed in 

the United States, DOE maintains that 

the 75 °F ambient test condition is a 

suitable rating condition and represents 

the average use cycle of the equipment. 

DOE believes removing the 90 °F 

ambient test condition test requirement 

will reduce manufacturer burden 

associated with its test procedure by 

eliminating testing that does not 

significantly increase the accuracy or 

representativeness of the DOE test 

procedure and is unnecessary for 

demonstrating compliance with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to eliminate the requirement to 

conduct testing at the 90 °F ambient test 

condition. 

3. Test Procedure for Combination 

Vending Machines 

In the 2013 BVM Framework 

document, DOE requested comment 

regarding the use of the current DOE test 

procedure to evaluate the energy use of 

combination vending machines. In 

response to the Framework document, 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the development of a test 

procedure for combination vending 

machines. AMS commented that it 

manufactures combination machines in 

a variety of different configurations and 

that testing these configured as Class A 

machines, if the machine design allows, 

would result in the highest energy 

consumption possible for the model. 

AMS added that, for combination 

vending machines tested configured as 

Class A machines, the current DOE test 

procedure and MDEC for Class A 

machines can be applied without any 

loss of program integrity. (AMS, No. 17 

at p. 4) NAMA commented that 

machines currently classified under the 

regulations as refrigerated can and bottle 

vending machines are inherently 

different than combination machines, 

which, unlike traditional can and bottle 

vending machines, are in most cases 

designed to dispense perishable 

products and food items in countless 

machine configurations. (NAMA, No. 8 

at p. 5) The CA IOUs commented that 

DOE should consider updates to the test 

procedure to accurately measure the 

efficiency of combination machines. 

(CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 3) Wittern 

commented that combination vending 

machines can be part of Class A if they 

are tested in the worst case condition, 

fully cooling the refrigerated 

compartment, since the machine is not 

going to consume more energy when it 

is only partially cooling the 

compartment. (Wittern, No. 16. at p. 2) 

Based on the comments received, 

DOE has determined that there may be 

confusion about what constitutes a 

combination vending machine for the 

purposes of DOE’s energy conservation 

standards. To clarify, DOE notes that a 

combination vending machine is 

defined as a refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine that 

also has non-refrigerated volumes for 

the purpose of vending other, non- 

‘‘sealed beverage’’ merchandise. 10 CFR 

431.292 Based on this definition, any 

machine (a) that upon payment 

dispenses beverages in sealed containers 

and (b) in which the entire internal 

storage volume is refrigerated, is not a 

combination vending machine. For 

example, a piece of equipment that is 

designed to vend sealed beverages and 

other products with an entirely 

refrigerated internal storage volume, 

would be a covered Class A refrigerated 

beverage vending machine and should 

be tested accordingly. Such equipment 

would be a covered Class A beverage 

vending machine even if the portions of 

the machine that vend sealed beverages 

and other products are physically 

separated, provided they are both 

refrigerated. 

Regarding the test procedure for 

combination vending machines, DOE 

believes that its current test procedure 

is appropriate for the evaluation of the 

refrigerated volume, vendible capacity, 

and energy use of combination vending 

machines. Similarly, DOE believes the 

amendments to the BVM test procedure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46914 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8For purposes of BVMs, basic model means all 

units of a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine(or class thereof) manufactured by 

one manufacturer, having the same primary energy 

source, and which have essentially identical 

electrical, physical, and functional characteristics 

that affect energy consumption or energy efficiency. 

See 10 CFR 431.292. If differing shelving 

configurations affect the energy consumption, these 

differing configurations should be considered 

different basic models. 

9Cowen, D. and Zabrowski, D. 2004. 

‘‘Application and Evaluation of ASHRAE 117–2002 

and ASHRAE 32.1–1997.’’ FSTC Report # 

5011.04.01. Fischer-Nickel, Inc. Available at: http:// 

www.fishnick.com/publications/appliancereports/

refrigeration/Application_of_ASHRAE_117_and_

32.1.pdf. 

proposed in this NOPR are equally 

applicable to combination vending 

machines. DOE notes, however, that the 

application of the BVM test procedure 

may require clarification as to how it is 

applied to combination vending 

machines. For example, in combination 

vending machines, only the refrigerated 

compartment would be evaluated in the 

refrigerated volume calculation, while 

the vendible capacity would be that of 

both refrigerated and non-refrigerated 

compartments. The non-refrigerated 

compartment would not be accounted 

for in the refrigerated volume 

determination. Similarly, standard test 

packages would be placed in the nextto-vend position only in the refrigerated 

portion of the refrigerated beverage 

vending machine and only the 

refrigerated portion of the combination 

vending machine would be required to 

be fully loaded to capacity. However, 

any lighting or other energy-consuming 

features in the non-refrigerated 

compartment would be fully energized 

during the test procedure and operated 

in the same manner as any lighting or 

features in the refrigerated compartment 

(see section III.A.11.b and III.B.1). 

Therefore, the total energy use of the 

machine during the 24-hour test would 

comprise the DEC, as measured in 

accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2004 or ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010. DOE proposes to 

add these clarifications to the DOE test 

procedure at 10 CFR 431.294 for 

combination vending machines. 

DOE requests comment on the 

applicability of the existing test 

procedure, as clarified, to combination 

vending machines. 

4. Loading of BVM Models When 

Conducting the DOE Test Procedure 

In reviewing the current test 

procedure for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines and, 

in particular, in reviewing the 

comments submitted regarding the 

applicability of the BVM test procedure 

to combination vending machines, DOE 

determined that the loading 

requirements for Class A and Class B 

machines are not clearly and 

unambiguously specified in the current 

DOE test procedure. Therefore, DOE 

proposes to add language to the BVM 

test procedure to clarify the loading 

requirements for covered Class A and 

Class B refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines that are 

offered in a variety of configurations 

and may be capable of vending other 

refrigerated merchandise. Specifically, 

DOE proposes to amend the regulatory 

text to clarify that any Class A or Class 

B beverage vending machine that is 

available with a variety of product 

storage configurations should be 

configured, for purposes of testing, to 

hold the maximum number of sealed 

beverages that it is capable of 

accommodating per manufacturer 

specifications. For example, if some 

areas of the machine can be configured 

either to vend sealed beverages or to 

vend other refrigerated merchandise, the 

equipment should be configured and 

loaded with the maximum number of 

sealed beverages for testing. Tests 

conducted with other configurations 

may produce different results because of 

the decrease in thermal mass in the 

refrigerated space. The performance at 

the maximum beverage configuration 

may be used to represent the 

performance of other configurations of a 

basic model of covered equipment 

which differ in placement and type of 

shelving only. However, if a 

manufacturer wishes to make differing 

representations regarding the energy 

consumption of a refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine in 

various shelving configurations, the 

manufacturer may elect to test and 

certify each unique shelving 

configuration as a separate basic 

model.8

DOE proposes to add language to the 

DOE test procedure in Appendix A and 

Appendix B to clarify the loading 

requirements for covered BVM models. 

5. Specifying the Characteristics of the 

Standard Product 

When testing a BVM model in 

accordance with the DOE test 

procedure, the equipment is to be 

loaded with the maximum quantity of 

standard product and with standard test 

packages in each next-to-be-vended 

position for each selection, as required 

by section 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2 of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 and 2010. 

Section 5 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004 and 2010 further requires 

that the standard product shall be 12- 

ounce cans for machines that are 

capable of dispensing 12-ounce cans. 

For all other machines, the standard 

product shall be the product specified 

by the manufacturer as the standard 

product. 

The DOE test procedure does not 

provide any further specificity regarding 

the characteristics of the standard 

product when conducting the DOE test 

procedure, or the manufacture of 

standard test packages. DOE 

understands that there may be 

variability among manufacturers and 

testing laboratories with regard to the 

configuration of standard product and 

standard test packages. DOE believes 

that such variability may result in minor 

inconsistencies in test results. As such, 

DOE proposes to clarify the 

characteristics of the standard product 

and standard test package to ensure test 

results are as consistent and repeatable 

as possible. 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to add 

text to the BVM test procedure in 

Appendix A and Appendix B, that the 

standard product shall be standard 12- 

ounce aluminum beverage cans filled 

with a liquid with a density of 1.0 grams 

per milliliter (g/mL) ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F. 

For refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines that are not 

capable of holding 12-ounce cans, but 

are capable of vending 20-ounce bottles, 

the standard product shall be 20-ounce 

plastic bottles filled with a liquid with 

a density of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL at 

36 °F. For refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines that are not 

capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 

20-ounce bottles, the product specified 

by the manufacturer as the standard 

product shall continue to be used. 

DOE selected a density range of 1.0 g/ 

mL ± 0.1 g/mL as it is inclusive of most 

test fluids used today. For example, this 

density range includes water, diet and 

regular soda, fruit juices, and propylene 

glycol/water mixtures up to 50/50 

percent by volume. In addition, FischerNickel conducted research in 2004 

comparing the temperature 

measurements of standard test packages 

constructed in the manner specified by 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1, as 

compared to the test packages described 

in ASHRAE Standard 117–2002, which 

are 1-pint plastic test packages filled 

with a 50/50 mixture of water and 

propylene glycol, and found little 

variation in measured temperatures 

with the different test package materials 

and fluids.9

Section 3 of ASHRAE 32.1–2004 and 

2010 defines the standard test package 

as a beverage container of the size and 

shape for which the vending machine is 

designed, altered to include a 

temperature-measuring instrument at its 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46915 

center of mass. DOE finds the 

requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2004 and 2010 to be 

fairly clear and concise, when paired 

with the clarification above regarding 

the standard product. And, as such, 

DOE is not proposing additional 

clarifications beyond the proposed 

clarification that the standard product 

shall be 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce 

bottles, for BVM models that are capable 

of holding cans or bottles, respectively, 

filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 

g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F. 

DOE requests comment on the need to 

maintain the flexibility of specifying the 

standard product as that specified by 

the manufacturer for refrigerated bottled 

or canned beverage vending machines 

that are not capable of holding 12-ounce 

cans or 20-ounce bottles. DOE 

specifically requests examples of BVM 

models that might require this flexibility 

and what type of standard products they 

are tested with currently. 

DOE requests comment on the 

sufficiency of the existing requirements 

regarding standard test packages. If the 

existing language is not sufficiently 

clear, DOE requests comments and 

recommendations regarding what 

additional clarifications might be 

necessary to ensure consistency and 

repeatability of test results. 

6. Clarifying the Next-to-Vend Beverage 

Temperature Test Condition 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004, 

the test method incorporated by 

reference in the current DOE test 

procedure, states, ‘‘the beverage 

temperature shall be measured in 

standard test packages in each next-tobe-vended position for each selection.’’ 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 

specifies an average next-to-vend 

temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F ‘‘throughout 

test.’’ The beverage temperature 

requirements of the ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010 test method, which 

DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference into its test procedure as part 

of this NOPR, are identical to those of 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004. 

DOE has become aware of a need to 

clarify whether the next-to-vend 

temperature specification of 36 °F ± 1 °F 

‘‘throughout test’’ refers to a condition 

in which the average next-to-vend 

temperature is maintained at 

36 °F ± 1 °F constantly for the duration 

of the test, or one in which the 

temperature of next-to-vend beverages is 

averaged across all selections and over 

the entire length of the test, resulting in 

a single value of 36 °F (± 1 °F). 

In the 2013 BVM Framework 

document, DOE requested comments on 

its consideration of clarifying the intent 

of the terminology ‘‘throughout test’’ 

with regard to maintaining the average 

next-to-vend temperature at 36 °F ± 1 °F 

in the DOE test procedure. Specifically, 

in the Framework document, DOE 

discussed clarifying the next-to-vend 

temperature condition as one where the 

average of all beverages in the next-tovend position is maintained at 

36 °F ± 1 °F at all times throughout the 

test. 78 FR 33262 (June 4, 2013). In 

response, DOE received a variety of 

comments. Royal and NAMA did not 

support this clarification, stating that 

DOE should average the temperature 

data across all next-to-vend selections 

and over the entire test period because 

there is no evidence that variations in 

temperatures will impact energy use as 

long as the temperature is averaged for 

the test period. Royal and NAMA 

further stated that vending machines 

have varying defrost schemes, and the 

individual next-to-vend selections or 

their average temperature may migrate 

outside the 36 °F (± 1 °F) range during 

defrost or other changes in refrigeration 

state. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 3; NAMA, No. 

8 at p. 2) Royal also commented that 

while the current ± 1 °F tolerance is 

adequate, a one-sided tolerance 

(allowing temperatures to go below 

35 °F but not above 37 °F) would 

provide more design freedom. (Royal, 

No. 7 at p. 53) 

Additionally, Wittern commented that 

it contacted ASHRAE, which provided 

interpretations from two former ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1 committee 

members that the temperature value to 

be used is the average of all test 

packages and not a tolerance applied to 

a single test package. (Wittern, No. 16 at 

p. 1) Wittern further commented that 

the current design is that the next-tovend beverages in stack machines are 

the first hit with the cold air and that 

maintaining the average product 

temperature (± 1 °F) for each product in 

a stack machine would require major 

redesign to have all beverages hit 

equally with the supply air. (Wittern, 

No. 16 at p. 1) AMS stated that holding 

60 or 70 cans within ± 1 °F is nearly 

impossible and would mean a dramatic 

increase in price. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) 

AMS stated that if such a specification 

is deemed necessary, ± 10 °F would be 

more appropriate. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) 

AMS also noted that because the ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1 test method 

specifies an accuracy of ± 1 °F for 

temperature measurement equipment, 

temperature measurements can probably 

only be expected to record a ± 5 °F 

tolerance range with reasonable 

certainty. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 1) 

DOE acknowledges commenters’ 

concerns that maintaining each 

individual beverage within a ± 1 °F 

tolerance is unnecessarily rigorous and 

is not the intent of the DOE test 

procedure. DOE agrees with 

commenters that the average next-tovend temperature should be both a 

spatial and temporal average. To remove 

any ambiguity from this requirement, 

DOE is proposing to clarify its test 

procedure by explicitly stating that the 

temperature of next-to-vend beverages 

shall be averaged across all next-to-vend 

beverages and over the entire time of the 

test, resulting in a single value of 36 °F 

(± 1 °F). Specifically, DOE proposes to 

incorporate a definition of integrated 

average temperature to read as follows 

integrated average temperature means 

the average of all standard test package 

measurements in the next-to-vend 

beverage positions taken during the test, 

expressed in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). 

This clarification aligns with the 

general methodology for determining 

the temperature of internal refrigerated 

volumes for commercial refrigeration 

equipment and, as such, should be 

understood by the BVM industry to be 

a time-averaged value. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition of ‘‘integrated 

average temperature’’ for beverage 

vending machines. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

the proposed definition for ‘‘integrated 

average temperature’’ aligns with 

standard practice in industry, and 

whether any manufacturers have instead 

been maintaining the 36 °F (± 1 °F) nextto-vend temperature constantly 

throughout the test used for DOE 

certification. 

7. Defining ‘‘Fully Cooled’’ 

The 2009 BVM final rule established 

DOE energy conservation standards for 

beverage vending machines in two 

equipment classes: Class A and Class B 

refrigerated beverage vending machines. 

74 FR 44914, 44968 (Aug. 31, 2009). The 

distinguishing criterion between these 

two equipment classes is whether or not 

equipment is fully cooled. 10 CFR 

431.292. 

DOE regulations, however, have never 

included a definition for the term ‘‘fully 

cooled.’’ In the 2013 BVM Framework 

document, DOE included a suggested 

definition for consideration and 

comment. The definition under 

consideration for fully cooled beverage 

in the 2013 BVM Framework document 

means a refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machine within 

which each item in the beverage 

vending machine is brought to and 

stored at temperatures that fall within 

± 2 °F of the average beverage 

temperature, which is the average of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46916 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

temperatures of all the items in the nextto-vend position for each selection. 

DOE received comments regarding the 

definition of ‘‘fully cooled’’ in response 

to the 2013 BVM Framework document. 

AMS commented that the strict 

temperature control (± 2 °F) proposed in 

the framework definition is not 

practical, and probably impossible to 

achieve, and that temperatures vary 

widely, possibly as much as ± 10 °F, 

from front to rear and top to bottom in 

today’s machines. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 6) 

AMS agreed with the rationale of the 

proposal, but stated that data taken from 

products not in the next-to-vend 

positions should only be used to 

determine whether such products are 

being cooled, without a strict 

temperature restriction. (AMS, No. 17 at 

p. 6) AMS suggested that if such 

products are at least 20 °F below the 

ambient temperature, the machine 

should be considered fully cooled. 

(AMS, No. 17 at p. 2) AMS suggested 

that plus or minus six degrees might be 

a more appropriate range. (AMS, No. 7 

at p. 51) AMS went on to say that it 

understood the current definition of 

‘‘fully cooled’’ as meaning that the 

machine’s inherent design is based on 

an attempt to equally cool all products 

within the machine and thought that 

this is generally the interpretation used 

by the rest of the industry as well. 

(AMS, No. 17 at p. 6) 

Wittern commented that its opaquefront beverage machines are zone-cooled 

for the most part, and that it believes the 

current equipment classes could be 

simplified to glass fronts with trays for 

Class A and closed fronts with stacks for 

Class B. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) 

Royal proposed to define a fully 

cooled vending machine as one in 

which the average temperature of all 

items in the next-to-vend position is 

within ± 1 °F during the 24-hour test 

period as defined in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 

7) Royal also commented that DOE 

should stay within established and 

approved standards for definition 

purposes, rather than trying to define 

new standards and classifications. 

(Royal, No. 5 at p. 50) NAMA stated that 

they agreed with the current definition 

of ‘‘fully cooled vending machine’’ as 

they believe is specified in ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010. (NAMA, 

No. 8 at p. 8) AMS agreed that a 

definition of fully cooled based on 

average next-to-vend temperatures 

across the face of the machine would be 

better than a temperature band for each 

beverage. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 57) 

The CA IOUs stated DOE should 

consider including a definition for zonecooled if it is used in the definition of 

Class B equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at 

p. 2) The CA IOUs requested that DOE 

work to establish a more descriptive 

definition of Class B equipment that 

describes them as what they are, which 

the CA IOUs understand to be zonecooled, rather than by what they are not, 

to prevent confusion for marketplace 

actors who may not be familiar with the 

equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at p. 2) 

In light of the comments received, 

DOE is proposing the following 

definition of ‘‘fully cooled’’ which 

means a condition in which the 

refrigeration system of a beverage 

vending machine cools product 

throughout the entire refrigerated 

volume of a machine instead of being 

directed at a fraction (or zone) of the 

refrigerated volume as measured by the 

average temperature of the standard test 

packages in the furthest from the nextto-vend positions is no more than 10 °F 

above the integrated average 

temperature of the standard test 

packages. 

This definition is predicated upon the 

different methods of cooling used in 

Class A and Class B machines and the 

customer utility provided by fully 

cooling the refrigerated space. 

Maintaining all refrigerated beverages 

within 10 °F of the next-to-vend 

beverage temperature typically allows 

customers to select from more beverages 

and ensures that the customer will 

receive a properly cooled product, 

regardless of the product’s vertical 

location in the machine. In response to 

NAMA’s proposal to apply the current 

definition of ‘‘fully cooled vending 

machine’’ as found in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010, DOE has reviewed 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 and 

did not find such a definition. 

As discussed earlier, DOE considered 

an alternative definition for fully cooled 

beverage vending machine. That 

definition would distinguish between 

those beverage vending machines that 

bring a product closer to the 

temperature at which it will be 

dispensed as it is moved closer to the 

next-to-vend position in the machine 

(i.e., zone-cooled beverage vending 

machines which hold the product in a 

vertical stack), and those units that are 

not designed to store products at 

temperatures other than the temperature 

at which the product will be dispensed. 

However, as suggested by interested 

parties in response to the 2013 BVM 

Framework Document, enforcing such a 

definition would require temperature 

measurements at each beverage location, 

which would be extremely burdensome 

to implement. In addition, requiring all 

beverages to be maintained at the nextto-vend temperature is an unrealistic 

requirement given the current designs of 

Class A machines. Instead, DOE is 

proposing temperature measurements at 

only the next-to-vend and furthest from 

next-to-vend temperature positions. 

DOE believes this is a reasonable 

number of additional temperature 

measurements such that the test 

procedure will not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct, while still 

providing a method to verify the 

location cooling method employed by 

the given machine. In addition, DOE 

selected a temperature range of 10 °F, as 

suggested by AMS, as a reasonable 

temperature bound to differentiate fully 

cooled beverage vending machines. DOE 

verified this proposed temperature 

range based on limited testing of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines currently available 

on the market to determine the typical 

temperature variability observed 

between the next-to-vend and furthest 

from next-to-vend beverages in Class A 

and Class B equipment, respectively. As 

such, DOE is proposing a more 

quantitative definition of fully cooled to 

unambiguously differentiate Class A 

and Class B equipment. 

DOE believes that the proposed 

definition of ‘‘fully cooled’’ accurately 

reflects the differences in cooling 

method and design between fully cooled 

and non-fully cooled beverage vending 

machines, and, further, aligns with 

DOE’s interpretation of fully cooled 

machines to date. Therefore, DOE does 

not anticipate that this proposal will 

change the equipment class or energy 

standard level for any equipment that is 

currently covered under existing 

standards. 

Along with DOE’s proposed definition 

for fully cooled, DOE also proposes to 

adopt a new test method that can be 

used to quantitatively differentiate 

between Class A and Class B equipment. 

As noted by Wittern, if temperature 

measurements are going to be used to 

determine which machines are fully 

cooled, the measurements must come 

from test packages in positions other 

than next-to-vend, because test packages 

in the next-to-vend position will be at 

the temperature at which they will be 

vended whether or not the machine is 

designed to equally cool all products 

within the machine. (Wittern, No. 16 at 

p. 2). 

In response to the 2013 BVM 

Framework, DOE received several 

comments concerning additional 

temperature measurements. Wittern 

commented that it did not agree with 

the definition of ‘‘fully cooled’’ in the 

framework because it required 

temperature measurements of all 

products, which would not be practical 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46917 

and would be extremely costly. Wittern 

also commented that the average of 

next-to-vend beverage temperature 

measurements is sufficient as a baseline 

to ensure compliance. (Wittern, No. 16 

at p. 2) AMS agreed with the rationale 

of additional temperature measurement 

requirements but argued that the data 

collected should only be used in a 

general way. (AMS, No 17 at p. 2) The 

CA IOUs commented that DOE should 

consider requiring additional 

thermocouples throughout the different 

zones of the equipment in order to 

verify the equipment’s cooling 

mechanism (fully cooled or zonecooled), and added that DOE can refer 

to the test procedure for residential 

refrigeration equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 

19 at p. 5) The Joint Comment stated 

that it supports additional product 

temperature measurements that could 

be used to verify a unit’s equipment 

class. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Royal and NAMA did not support the 

addition of requirements of temperature 

measurements at locations other than 

the next-to-vend position because the 

location of such thermocouples is not 

specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2010 and will increase the time 

and cost of testing, creating undue 

hardship on small manufacturers by 

requiring them to expand their 

laboratory equipment and resources. 

(Royal, No. 11 at p. 4; NAMA, No. 8 at 

p. 3) NAMA also commented that all 

temperature measurements should 

continue to be made in the next-to-vend 

package, focusing on the products that 

are conditioned for immediate sale to 

the consumer. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 3) 

Wittern commented that it would prefer 

to minimize the number of 

thermocouples needed for the test, as it 

is almost maxed out on the capabilities 

of its data acquisition equipment. 

(Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges the comments of 

interested parties regarding the need for 

additional temperature measurements 

and the potential associated burden 

with such measurements, but notes that 

a quantitative and objective test method 

is required to unambiguously 

differentiate Class A and Class B 

equipment in cases where the 

appropriate categorization of equipment 

may not be clear. Therefore, in today’s 

NOPR, DOE is proposing a test method 

to verify whether refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines 

meet the definition of ‘‘fully cooled.’’ 

The proposed test method is based on 

the difference between the average nextto-vend temperature and the average 

temperature of standard test packages 

placed in the furthest from next-to-vend 

position during the test period. 

Specifically, DOE proposes to amend 

the regulatory text to clarify that a 

beverage vending machine is fully 

cooled if the difference between these 

two averages is no greater than 10 °F 

during the test period. 

DOE recognizes the comments of 

interested parties stating that it is 

difficult to establish a strict range that 

will be universally applicable to all 

types of Class A and Class B refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines. Specifically, it is possible 

that some machines that have next-tovend beverages stored throughout the 

vertical axis of the usable refrigerated 

space could have differences between 

the average next-to-vend temperature 

and the average furthest from next-tovend temperature (along the horizontal 

axis) that are greater than any range 

DOE may set. Conversely, machines that 

have next-to-vend beverages only in the 

bottom of the machine (stack machines) 

could have differences between the 

average next-to-vend temperature and 

the furthest from next-to-vend 

temperature (along the vertical access) 

that are less than any range DOE may 

set. However, DOE notes that a 

quantitative test is required to ensure 

consistent categorization among 

manufacturers and for appropriate 

application of the standards. 

DOE believes that a 10 °F temperature 

range is sufficiently broad so that it will 

effectively categorize machines in 

which the entire refrigerated volume is 

fully cooled. DOE also notes that such 

a temperature range may encourage 

manufacturers of Class B, zone-cooled 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines to ensure that the 

refrigeration system is, in fact, only 

cooling the bottom portion of the 

machine where the next-to-vend 

beverages are located, which is an 

inherently more energy efficient design. 

DOE does not believe a strict 

temperature range would create a 

loophole for manufacturers to modify 

the design of Class A machines such 

that the temperature requirement is not 

met and the equipment can be certified 

as a Class B machine due to the specific 

customer utility of fully cooled 

machines. 

As such, DOE proposes to establish an 

optional test method for determining if 

a given refrigerated bottled or canned 

unit meets DOE’s definition of ‘‘fully 

cooled’’ where standard test packages 

would be placed in representative 

locations furthest from each next-tovend beverage location, in addition to 

every next-to-vend beverage position as 

is currently required. For beverage 

vending machines with horizontal 

product rows, or spirals, this would 

require a standard test package at the 

back of the horizontal product rows in 

the four corners of the machine (e.g., 

bottom right, bottom left, top right, and 

top left). For beverage vending machines 

with standard products configured in a 

vertical stack, this would include an 

additional standard test package at the 

top of each stack. To determine if a 

given refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machine was fully 

cooled, manufacturers would determine 

the average temperature of the standard 

test packages in the furthest from the 

next-to-vend position over the entire 

test period and compare that value to 

the integrated average temperature of 

standard test packages in the next-tovend beverage positions. If the 

difference between these two values is 

less than or equal to 10 °F, the tested 

unit would be considered fully cooled. 

DOE notes that this test method 

would not be required to certify 

equipment but would be the method 

used by DOE to determine the 

appropriate equipment class for 

enforcement purposes. Therefore, DOE’s 

proposed definition and test method 

would not require manufacturers to take 

any additional temperature 

measurements beyond what is currently 

specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004, as incorporated, and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010, as 

proposed. Even if manufacturers elect to 

perform this proposed test method for 

all certified BVM models, DOE does not 

believe this will significantly increase 

the burden of conducting the BVM test 

procedure. A detailed analysis of the 

incremental burden associated with the 

fully cooled validation procedure is 

included in section IV.B. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition of ‘‘fully cooled.’’ 

DOE would further appreciate comment 

as to whether the proposed definition 

aligns with the classifications of Class A 

and Class B equipment currently used 

in industry. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed fully cooled validation test 

method. Specifically, DOE requests 

comment as to whether a range of 10 °F 

is an appropriate threshold to 

differentiate fully cooled equipment and 

any incremental burden on 

manufacturers associated with the 

optional test method for determining if 

a BVM model meets the definition of 

‘‘fully cooled.’’ 

8. Placement of Thermocouples During 

Testing 

DOE has realized that there is 

currently a lack of specificity in the 

DOE test procedure regarding proper 

placement of thermocouple wires 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

during testing. DOE proposes to clarify 

that, in order to avoid compromising the 

thermal integrity of the vending 

machine, thermocouple wires should 

not be run through the dispensing door. 

Instead, the wires should be fed through 

the gasket, as it will form around them 

and maintain a better thermal seal for 

the cooled compartment. As such, DOE 

proposes to add text to the BVM test 

procedure in Appendix A and 

Appendix B specifying that sensors 

shall be installed in a manner that does 

not affect energy performance. 

Specifically, DOE proposes to amend 

the regulatory text to require that 

thermocouple wires be run through the 

door gasket and not through the 

dispensing door of the beverage vending 

machine such that the sensor pathway 

is sealed to prohibit airflow between the 

interior refrigerated volume and the 

ambient room air. 

9. Establishing Testing Provisions at the 

Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

DOE’s current test procedure requires 

that an average next-to-vend 

temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F be 

maintained throughout the test, as 

required by the energy performance test 

(section 7.2) in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2010 contains the same 

requirement. DOE is aware that certain 

models of beverage vending machines 

available on the market are covered by 

DOE’s test procedure and energy 

conservation standards, but are not 

designed to maintain the prescribed 

rating temperature, and thus cannot be 

tested in accordance with the DOE test 

procedure. Manufacturers of such 

equipment currently must request a test 

procedure waiver to comply with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards in 

accordance with 10 CFR 431.401. 

While DOE recognizes that the 

majority of covered beverage vending 

machines can be tested at the 

established rating temperature of 36 °F, 

DOE is aware of some unique BVM 

models that are designed to operate 

much higher than 36 °F and cannot 

operate at 36 °F. As such, in the 2013 

BVM Framework document, DOE 

discussed adopting provisions for 

testing equipment that cannot operate at 

the specified next-to-vend beverage 

temperature at the equipment’s lowest 

application product temperature. DOE 

added that, in this context, the lowest 

application product temperature would 

describe the lowest temperature at 

which the beverage vending machine is 

capable of operating and is often 

indicated by the lowest setting on a 

unit’s thermostat. In response to the 

2013 BVM Framework document, DOE 

received several comments regarding a 

proposed lowest application product 

temperature provision. Both Royal and 

NAMA disagreed with allowing BVM 

models that cannot achieve an average 

temperature of next-to-vend products of 

36 °F (± 1 °F) to instead be tested at the 

lowest application product temperature, 

contending that test procedures should 

use ANSI-approved technical standards. 

(Royal, No. 11 at p. 3; NAMA, No. 8 at 

p. 3) Wittern saw no need for the lowest 

application product temperature 

provision. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) AMS 

supported the provision as long as there 

is no attendant change in MDEC 

calculation. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 2) 

DOE is proposing amendments to its 

test procedure for beverage vending 

machines to allow covered beverage 

vending machines that cannot achieve 

an average next-to-vend temperature of 

36 °F (± 1 °F) to instead be tested at their 

lowest application product temperature. 

DOE believes that testing at the lowest 

application product temperature would 

best allow for the measurement of DEC 

of equipment that cannot maintain an 

average next-to-vend temperature of 

36 °F (± 1 °F). The lowest application 

product temperature provision would be 

consistent with DOE’s 2014 test 

procedure final rule for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, where an 

identical provision was adopted for 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

could not maintain the required 

integrated average product temperature 

specified for its given equipment class. 

79 FR 22277, 22297–22298, 22308 

(April 21, 2014). 

In the context of beverage vending 

machines, the lowest application 

product temperature would describe the 

lowest temperature at which a beverage 

vending machine model is capable of 

maintaining next-to-vend beverages and 

could correspond to the lowest setting 

on a unit’s thermostat. For beverage 

vending machines that cannot maintain 

an average next-to-vend temperature of 

36 °F (± 1 °F), the lowest application 

product temperature provision would 

specify a revised average beverage 

temperature for beverages in the next-tovend position, but would not modify 

any other requirements of the DOE test 

procedure. Equipment tested and 

certified using the lowest application 

product temperature would be required 

to meet the standard applicable for its 

equipment class and refrigerated 

volume, and the manufacturer would be 

required to maintain records of the 

lowest application product temperature 

at which a given model is rated. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt a lowest application 

product temperature provision for 

covered beverage vending machines that 

cannot be tested at the specified average 

next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F 

(± 1 °F). 

DOE also requests comment on how 

the lowest application product 

temperature might be best determined 

for beverage vending machines and 

whether the lowest thermostat setting is 

a reasonable approach for most 

equipment. DOE requests comment on 

how to determine the lowest application 

product temperature for equipment 

without thermostats. 

10. Clarifications to Certification and 

Reporting Requirements 

DOE notes that 10 CFR 429.52(b)(2) 

contains requirements for certification 

reports for covered beverage vending 

machines. Specifically, DOE requires 

reporting of ‘‘maximum average daily 

energy consumption.’’ However, ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 describes 

the test procedure for determining 

‘‘daily energy consumption’’ as the 

measured result for a given model of 

beverage vending machine. To be 

consistent, DOE is proposing updating 

the reporting requirements at 10 CFR 

429.52(b)(2) to reference ‘‘daily energy 

consumption’’ rather than ‘‘maximum 

average daily energy consumption.’’ 

DOE notes that it intends for 

manufacturers to include in their 

certification reports the measured ‘‘daily 

energy consumption’’ for each basic 

model of beverage vending machine. 

The ‘‘maximum daily energy 

consumption’’ referenced in 10 CFR 

431.296 for a given model of beverage 

vending machine is the maximum 

permissible energy consumption (i.e., 

the energy conservation standard) level 

for that model, while the ‘‘daily energy 

consumption’’ is the measured energy 

consumption determined through the 

DOE test procedure. The ‘‘daily energy 

consumption’’ of a given BVM basic 

model measured in the DOE test 

procedure and reported in accordance 

with 10 CFR 429.52(b)(2) should be 

compared to the ‘‘maximum daily 

energy consumption’’ for the basic 

model’s respective equipment class in 

the standard table in 10 CFR 431.296. 

Specifically, the ‘‘daily energy 

consumption’’ determined and reported 

for each BVM basic model shall not 

exceed the relevant ‘‘maximum daily 

energy consumption’’ value noted in the 

standard table. Therefore, DOE proposes 

to update the language at 10 CFR 

429.52(b)(2) to request the ‘‘daily energy 

consumption’’ of covered models and 

update the language at 10 CFR 431.296 

to specify that the ‘‘daily energy 

consumption’’ of refrigerated bottled or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46919 

canned shall not exceed the ‘‘maximum 

daily energy consumption’’ specified in 

the energy conservation standard table. 

11. Treatment of Certain Accessories 

During Testing 

In reviewing its test procedure for 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines, DOE recognized that 

the existing test procedure does not 

clearly specify the appropriate operation 

of some components and accessories 

when conducting the DOE test 

procedure. Given this, DOE understands 

that there is room for misinterpretation 

of the requirements for equipment 

configuration where the DOE test 

procedure is currently ambiguous or 

silent. As such, DOE is proposing to 

clarify the proper configuration and 

operation of several specific 

components and accessories in the DOE 

test procedure. 

DOE emphasizes that the 

clarifications discussed in this section 

III.A.11 serve only to unambiguously 

specify the intent of the current DOE 

test procedure. However, DOE 

recognizes that, because the DOE test 

procedure was previously silent or 

ambiguous on the specific treatment of 

some components, it is possible that 

some BVM manufacturers 

misinterpreted DOE’s test procedure 

and, thus, some BVM models were 

tested inconsistently. Therefore, some 

BVM models may require recertification 

based on these new clarifications, but 

this is only because these models were 

not tested in a manner consistent with 

the DOE test procedure or the majority 

of BVM models. Since these 

clarifications do not represent new 

amendments or requirements when 

conducting the DOE test procedure, 

DOE believes that it is appropriate that 

the proposed revised and additional 

language be required for equipment 

testing as of 180 days after publication 

of any final rule adopting such revised 

or additional language. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the requirements for energyconsuming devices unrelated to 

lighting, refrigeration, or beverage 

dispensing in the DOE test procedure. 

AMS commented that ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1 does not mention coinchanging, bill-validating, or cashless 

systems, one or more of which is always 

included on a vending machine and 

some of which may consume energy in 

amounts that might have a slight effect 

on DEC. AMS recommended the 

addition of a clarification that these 

devices are not required to be in place 

during testing. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 2) The 

Joint Comment requested that DOE 

clarify how machines with interactive 

touch screens or other energyconsuming features are tested under the 

current test procedure, and consider 

amending the test procedure to capture 

this energy use if it is not currently 

captured so that manufacturers will 

have an incentive to reduce this energy 

use. (Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Royal recommended an alternate energy 

specification for beverage vending 

machines that incorporates off-the-shelf 

components that contribute to increased 

energy use, but also have a parallel DOE 

requirement for energy use. Royal stated 

that the BVM energy conservation 

standard should include an appropriate 

allowance for incorporated components 

that must meet a separate DOE standard 

for energy use. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 8) 

Royal and NAMA commented that 

manufacturers are constantly being 

asked to develop equipment that 

combines other products and additional 

functionality beyond cooling of 

beverages, and that such equipment is 

generally considered to be outside the 

scope of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2010 test procedure. Royal and 

NAMA further commented that they 

anticipate an increasing number of 

customer requests for such components. 

(Royal, No. 11 at p. 8; NAMA, No. 8 at 

p. 9) 

In addition, Royal and NAMA 

commented that they offer ‘‘heating 

mode’’ for outdoor machines in cold 

climates as an optional accessory; 

however, this mode has very limited 

demand and therefore limited impact on 

annual power used by beverage vending 

machines in the United States. Royal 

recommended that DOE not evaluate 

this feature. (Royal, No. 11 at p. 12; 

NAMA, No. 8 at p. 15) Royal also 

commented that none of its vending 

machines for outdoor applications have 

heaters or hot gas defrost mode, and that 

heaters that are installed are probably an 

after-market component or an optional 

accessory. (Royal, No. 7 at p. 93) 

AMS and Crane Merchandising 

(Crane) commented that they 

manufacture and sell machines with 

heaters for use in outside climates, 

although the quantities sold are very 

small and the heaters are only activated 

in sub-freezing conditions. (AMS, No. 

17 at p. 11; Crane, No. 7 at p. 91) 

Accordingly, AMS recommended DOE 

disregard the issue altogether. (AMS, 

No.17 at p. 11) AMS added that, being 

at high efficiency on the cooling side 

generally means equally at high 

efficiency on the heating side. Because 

most of these heating systems are based 

on electricity, which is essentially 100- 

percent efficient at heating, AMS added 

that DOE can ignore additional energy 

use from these features. (AMS, No. 7 at 

p. 93) 

In response to comments submitted 

by interested parties, DOE notes that 

any device that is integral to the 

intended operation of the beverage 

vending machine must be included in 

the test. In this context, DOE interprets 

integral to mean necessary for operation 

of the BVM model in a manner that 

meets the DOE definition for 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine. That is, the accessory 

or component is required for the BVM 

model to cool bottled or canned 

beverages and/or dispense bottled or 

canned beverages on payment. In 

addition, any manually-controllable 

energy-consuming accessories that are 

integral to the performance of the 

beverage vending machine refrigeration 

system must be in place during testing 

if offered for sale with that basic model 

and must be tested at the most energyconsuming setting. An exception 

applies for accessories that are 

controlled by automatic controls, which 

shall be tested in the automatic state. 

Optional accessories that do not affect 

the measured energy use of covered 

equipment generally do not need to be 

included in the test. To clarify these 

requirements, DOE proposes to add 

language in Appendix A and Appendix 

B regarding the specific treatment of 

components and accessories during 

testing, including the specific exclusion 

of heaters installed solely for preventing 

the freezing of sealed beverages in the 

winter in extremely cold climates. The 

ensuing sections discuss the treatment 

of specific features, components, and 

accessories under the existing and any 

amended DOE test procedure 

provisions. 

a. Money-Processing Equipment 

Money-processing devices are integral 

to the vending function of the beverage 

vending machine and, accordingly, 

should be in place and functional 

during testing. Money-processing 

equipment include, but are not limited 

to coin mechanisms, bill validators, and 

credit card readers. When certifying a 

vending machine, the most energyconsuming combination of moneyprocessing equipment should be used, 

and all other less energy-consumptive 

combinations may be listed as different 

models covered under that basic model. 

Alternatively, manufacturers may wish 

to certify and make representations 

regarding the energy use of each 

combination of money-processing 

equipment as a different basic model. In 

order to certify each combination as a 

separate basic model, a manufacturer 

would be required to maintain test data 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46920 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10Note that the DOE test procedure for televisions 

includes measurement of power consumed in on 

mode at different screen illumination levels and 

power consumed in several standby modes. 10 CFR 

430.23. This average calculation of daily energy 

consumption represents an average of the power 

consumed in each of the on mode and standby 

mode, respectively, multiplied by 24 hours/day and 

divided by 1,000 watts/kilowatt. 

from testing of the machine in each 

configuration. 

b. Interior Lighting 

Refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines typically 

include lighting to illuminate the 

product, in the case of Class A 

equipment, or illuminate display panels 

that also serve as the physical walls of 

the beverage vending machine. In both 

cases, these lights are internal to the 

physical walls of the beverage vending 

machine and, thus, deemed integral to 

the operation of the equipment. The 

DOE test procedure, through 

incorporation of ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2004, currently requires 

beverage vending machines to be tested 

with ‘‘normal lighting and control 

settings.’’ The revised ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010 includes the same 

requirement. 

DOE recognizes that this specification 

could be interpreted differently in 

different circumstances and, as such, 

proposes to amend the regulatory text to 

clarify the treatment of internal lighting 

when conducting the DOE test 

procedure. Specifically, DOE proposes 

an amendment to the regulatory text 

stating that lighting that is contained 

within or is part of the physical 

boundary of the refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine 

established by the top, bottom, and side 

panels of the equipment be placed in its 

maximum energy consuming state. DOE 

believes that the maximum energy 

consuming state is consistent with the 

‘‘normal’’ setting and is the operation 

most commonly employed in the field. 

In DOE’s experience, most beverage 

vending machines employ up to three 

lighting settings: ‘‘on,’’ ‘‘dim,’’ and 

‘‘off.’’ To the extent that there are 

multiple ‘‘on’’ settings, DOE 

understands that these settings typically 

constitute various dimming settings and 

do not represent settings that are 

brighter or more-energy consuming than 

the expected field operation. More 

importantly, DOE believes that 

specifying that internal lighting be 

operated in the maximum energy 

consuming state provides clear and 

unambiguous instructions that are not 

subject to interpretation of testing 

personnel. DOE believes such a 

specification will result in consistent 

and repeatable test results for beverage 

vending machines under the DOE test 

procedure. 

DOE finds this clarification to be 

applicable to equipment tested under 

Appendix A to demonstrate compliance 

with existing energy conservation 

standards, as well as to equipment 

testing using Appendix B to 

demonstrate compliance with any future 

energy conservation standards. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to add 

language to both Appendix A and 

Appendix B clarifying that internal 

lighting shall be operating in its 

maximum energy consuming state when 

conducting the DOE test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to clarify in Appendices A and 

B that internal lighting shall be operated 

in the maximum energy consuming state 

under the DOE test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on whether 

the maximum energy consuming state 

for internal lighting is consistent with 

‘‘normal’’ operation. 

c. External Customer Display Signs, 

Lights, or Digital Screens 

In addition to this typical internal 

case lighting. DOE understands that 

some refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines may 

incorporate additional exterior lighting 

or signage, outside of the body of the 

refrigerated BVM cabinet. This lighting 

and signage is optional and is not 

integral to the cabinet. Further, this 

auxiliary signage does not illuminate 

product inside the body of the cabinet. 

In addition, some models may include 

touchscreens or lighted displays. DOE 

recognizes that external customer 

display signs, lighting, and digital 

screens will increase the energy use of 

refrigerated beverage vending machines 

that include those features, potentially 

significantly so. For example, the 

average energy use of televisions and 

digital screens is approximately 2.58 

kWh/day in on mode and 0.01 kWh/day 

for televisions in stand-by mode 10

(Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–TP–0026, 

No. 27). The average energy use of a 

television in on mode represents 

between 50 and 100 percent of the 

energy use of an average beverage 

vending machine, depending on the 

BVM size and equipment class. 

DOE notes that such external 

customer display signs, lighting, or 

digital screens are not explicitly 

addressed in the DOE test procedure or 

in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 

and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1– 

2010. However, ASHRAE has issued an 

interpretation to ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010, which states that 

‘‘the Standard (32.1) addresses the 

refrigerated/delivery system portion of 

the machine. Thus, any peripheral 

devices, not necessary for the basic 

function of the vending machine are not 

addressed by Standard 32.1.’’ Similarly, 

DOE finds that external customer 

display signs, lighting, or digital screens 

are peripheral to the primary 

functionality of a refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine, as 

defined at 10 CFR 431. 292, and thus 

their energy use should not be 

accounted for in the measured DEC of 

BVM models. 

Further, as the DOE test procedure 

does not provide guidance for how to 

operate such external customer display 

signs, lighting, and digital screens, it 

would be inconsistent with the DOE test 

procedure to include the energy use of 

external customer display signs, 

lighting, and digital screens in the 

measured DEC of BVM models. As such, 

in the current DOE test procedure, as 

specified and clarified in Appendix A in 

this test procedure NOPR, DOE 

proposes to clarify that customer 

display signs, lighting, and digital 

screens that are external to the 

refrigerated beverage vending machine 

and not integral to the operation of the 

primary refrigeration or vending 

functions (e.g., allow consumers to 

make a product selection) may be 

disabled, disconnected, or otherwise deenergized. Lighting that is internal to 

the refrigerated beverage vending 

machine cabinet or necessary for the 

vending function must be placed in its 

maximum energy consuming state, as 

discussed in section III.A.11.b. and 

subsequently in this section III.A.11.c. 

Some BVM models also include 

customer display signs, lighting, or 

digital screens that are integral to the 

functionality of the refrigerated beverage 

vending machine in that it cannot 

perform the primary refrigeration and 

vending functions if such equipment is 

disabled or removed. For example, if a 

digital screen is integrated into the 

cabinetry or controls of a BVM model 

such that it cannot be independently deenergized or disabled and/or the BVM 

cannot dispense product without the 

digital screen being energized, the 

digital screen would be deemed integral 

to the BVM model. In this case, the 

integral customer display signs, lighting, 

or digital screens should be put in its 

lowest energy-consuming state. If a 

digital screen performs the vending or 

money-processing function, that screen 

should be placed in its lowest energyconsuming state that still allows the 

money-processing feature to function. 

DOE believes that this will provide 

equitable treatment with other moneyprocessing devices that must be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46921 

energized, as specified in section 

III.A.11.a. 

To clarify the treatment of external 

and integrated customer display signs, 

lighting, and digital screens, DOE 

proposes to add language to the test 

procedure in Appendix A specifying the 

treatment of these devices when 

certifying BVM models under the 

existing energy conservation standards. 

DOE notes that this includes television 

displays, as commented on by Royal 

and NAMA. 

DOE notes, however, that the use of 

interactive, multi-purpose energized 

displays are becoming much more 

common in new equipment designs. As 

the use of such customer display signs, 

lighting, and digital screens become 

more ubiquitous in refrigerated bottled 

or canned beverage vending machine 

design, it may be important to include 

the energy use of such features in the 

measured DEC of BVM models. DOE 

notes that these energized displays are 

also becoming much more interactive 

and more commonly are integral to the 

refrigeration or vending functionality of 

the refrigerated beverage vending 

machine. Therefore, it may be more 

representative to capture some measure 

of energy use of external, integral 

customer display signs, lighting, and 

digital screens in the measured DEC of 

the BVM model. 

Specifying, however, that external, 

integral customer display signs, lighting, 

and digital screens be operated as the 

equipment would typically be used in 

the field may significantly increase the 

energy use of BVM models and 

capturing the energy use of such 

auxiliary functions may not be 

representative of the primary 

refrigeration and vending functions of 

the refrigerated beverage vending 

machine. In addition, specifying typical 

field operation for the variety of 

equipment configurations and operating 

modes may significantly increase the 

complexity of testing BVM models. 

As such, DOE believes that capturing 

the standby energy use of such external, 

integral customer display signs, lighting, 

and digital screens installed on a given 

BVM model would be a sufficiently 

representative and reasonable 

alternative that can be consistently 

implemented across BVM models. In 

this way, the energy use associated with 

the primary refrigeration and vending 

functions of the refrigerated beverage 

vending machine continue to constitute 

the majority of the measured DEC value, 

but the incremental standby energy use 

of any external customer display signs, 

lighting, and digital screens that are 

integral to the BVM model are 

minimally accounted for in a consistent 

and repeatable manner. 

Therefore, DOE proposes that under 

the amended DOE test procedure 

presented in Appendix B, all external, 

integral customer display signs, lighting, 

and digital screens be placed in standby 

mode. For the purposes of the BVM test 

procedure, DOE proposes to incorporate 

a definition for standby mode, 

applicable to external, integral customer 

display signs, lighting, and digital 

screens in Appendix B. DOE proposes to 

define standby mode as the mode of 

operation in which any external, 

integral customer display signs, lighting, 

or digital screens are connected to 

mains power, do not produce the 

intended illumination, display, or 

interaction functionality, and can be 

switched into another mode 

automatically with only a remote usergenerated or an internal signal. If the 

external, integral customer display 

signs, lighting, or digital screens do not 

have a standby mode, the integral 

customer display signs, lighting, or 

digital screens would be placed in the 

lowest energy-consuming state, similar 

to Appendix A. In addition, if a digital 

screen performs the vending or moneyprocessing function, that screen should 

be placed in its lowest energyconsuming state that still allows the 

money-processing feature to function. 

DOE notes that, under this proposal, 

all non-integral, external customer 

display signs, lighting, and digital 

screens that are purely auxiliary and can 

be independently energized and 

operated, would continue to be 

disconnected, disabled, or otherwise deenergized in Appendix B, as specified in 

Appendix A. 

DOE requests comment on the range 

of equipment that should be addressed 

in this category of accessories and if the 

proposed terminology of customer 

display signs, lighting, and digital 

screens is sufficient to capture the 

variety of similar auxiliary energyconsuming accessories that might be 

installed on BVM models. 

DOE requests comment on the 

treatment of external and integral 

customer display signs, lighting, and 

digital screens in Appendix A. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed treatment of external and 

integral customer display signs, lighting, 

and digital screens in Appendix B. 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

whether disabling external devices and 

placing integral devices in standby 

mode or their lowest energy-consuming 

state is sufficiently representative of the 

energy use of refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition of standby mode as 

the mode of operation in which the 

external, integral customer display 

signs, lighting, or digital screens is 

connected to mains power, does not 

produce the intended illumination, 

display, or interaction functionality, and 

can be switched into another mode 

automatically with only a remote usergenerated or an internal signal. 

For digital screens that also perform 

the vending or money-processing 

function, DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to place these screens in their 

lowest energy-consuming state that still 

allows the money-processing feature to 

function. 

d. Anti-Sweat and Other Electric 

Resistance Heaters 

Class A beverage vending machines 

may come equipped with anti-sweat 

electric resistance heaters that serve to 

evaporate any water that condenses on 

the surface of the door or walls during 

operation. 

DOE proposes to amend the 

regulatory text to clarify that anti-sweat 

and other electric resistance heaters 

should be operational during testing 

under the DOE test procedure. Models 

with a user-selectable setting must be 

turned on and set to the maximum 

usage position. Models featuring an 

automatic, non-user-adjustable 

controller that turns on or off based on 

environmental conditions must be 

operating in the automatic state. 

Additionally, DOE proposes to amend 

the regulatory text to clarify that, if a 

unit is not shipped with a controller 

from the point of manufacture, and is 

intended to be used with a controller, 

the manufacturer must make 

representations of the basic model based 

upon the rated performance of that basic 

model as tested when equipped with an 

appropriate controller. DOE is 

proposing to add clarifying language in 

Appendix A and Appendix B to specify 

that anti-sweat or other electric 

resistance heaters must be installed and 

operated in their automatic state, if 

controlled, or in their maximum energy 

consuming position, if manually 

adjustable. 

e. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps 

Beverage vending machines capture 

water from the air entering the cabinet 

during operation by causing the water to 

condense and then freeze on the 

evaporator coil of the equipment. 

During a defrost cycle, this frost is 

melted, and the meltwater produced 

must be removed from the unit. In many 

types of equipment, this meltwater is 

collected in a pan beneath the unit. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46922 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Some models of beverage vending 

machines come equipped with electric 

resistance heaters that evaporate this 

water out of the pan and into the 

ambient air. Other models may come 

equipped with pumps that pump 

meltwater to an external drain. 

In DOE’s view, these electric 

resistance heaters and condensate 

pumps must be installed and 

operational during testing pursuant to 

the DOE test procedure as they would 

be used in the field during the entire 

test. The ‘‘entire test’’ includes 

stabilization, low power mode, and 

vending state test periods. Prior to the 

start of the stabilization period, the 

condensate pan should be dry. During 

the entirety of the period of the test 

following the start of the stabilization 

period, any condensate moisture 

generated should be allowed to 

accumulate in the pan, as it would 

during normal operations. Water should 

not be manually added to or removed 

from the condensate pan at any time 

during the entire test. If the condensate 

heater or pump is equipped with 

controls to initiate the operation of the 

heater or pump based on water level or 

ambient conditions, these controls may 

be enabled and the heater or pump 

should be operated in the automatic 

setting. 

DOE is aware that manufacturers may 

offer condensate pan heaters and pumps 

such that they are shipped separately 

from, or not installed upon, the specific 

beverage vending machine unit with 

which they would be used in normal 

operation. DOE believes that, if the 

manufacturer offers a given basic model 

for sale with an available condensate 

pan heater or pump, the manufacturer 

must make representations of the 

performance of the basic model as tested 

with the feature in place. DOE is 

proposing to add clarifying language in 

Appendix A and Appendix B to specify 

that, during testing pursuant to the DOE 

test procedure, condensate pan heaters 

and pumps must be installed and 

operated as they would be used in the 

field. 

f. Illuminated Temperature Displays 

Manufacturers may equip some 

beverage vending machine models with 

illuminated displays that provide visual 

information to the equipment operator 

regarding, for example, the temperature 

inside the refrigerated case. DOE 

understands this feature to be integral to 

the design of the given model and 

proposes to amend the regulatory text to 

clarify that any illuminated temperature 

displays should be enabled during the 

test as they would be during normal 

field operation. DOE is proposing to add 

clarifying language in Appendix A and 

Appendix B to address illuminated 

temperature displays and alarms. 

g. Condenser Filters 

Manufacturers may offer models 

equipped with nonpermanent filters 

over a model’s condenser coil to prevent 

particulates from blocking the 

condenser coil and reducing airflow. 

DOE believes that these filters should be 

removed during testing pursuant to the 

DOE test procedure, as such accessories 

are optional and are not required for 

operation of the refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine. 

Further, these optional condenser filters 

are not expected to significantly impact 

energy use over the relatively short 

duration of the DOE test procedure and 

are more important for the long-term 

reliability of the equipment in the field. 

Therefore, to simplify testing of BVM 

models under the DOE test procedure, 

DOE proposes to add clarifying language 

to Appendix A and Appendix B that any 

optional condenser filters should be 

removed. 

h. Security Covers 

Manufacturers may offer for sale with 

a basic model an option to include 

straps or other devices to secure the 

beverage vending machine and prevent 

theft or tampering. Because such 

security devices are not anticipated to 

affect the measured energy use of 

covered equipment and will likely 

significantly complicate the loading and 

testing of BVM models, DOE intended 

that these security devices should be 

removed during testing under the DOE 

test procedure and proposes to add 

clarifying language to the proposed test 

procedures in Appendix A and 

Appendix B. 

i. Coated Coils 

Coated coils, generally specified for 

use in units that will be subjected to 

environments in which acids or 

oxidizers are present, are treated with 

an additional coating (such as a layer of 

epoxy or polymer) as a barrier to protect 

the bare metal of the coil from 

deterioration through environmental 

contact. DOE believes the existing DOE 

test procedure accurately accounts for 

the performance of all types of coils, 

including those with coatings, and that 

no additional clarifications are needed 

in the test procedure. 

j. General Purpose Outlets 

Some beverage vending machines 

may be offered for sale with integrated 

general purpose electrical outlets, which 

may be used to power additional 

equipment. DOE intended that, during 

testing pursuant to the DOE test 

procedure, no external load should be 

connected to the general purpose outlets 

contained within a unit and proposes to 

add clarifying language to Appendix A 

and Appendix B. 

k. Crankcase Heaters and Electric 

Resistance Heaters for Cold Weather 

Some BVM models feature crankcase 

heaters or electric resistance heaters 

designed to keep the compressor warm 

in order to maintain the refrigerant at 

optimal conditions. They also prevent 

freezing of refrigerated beverages 

contained in the unit when the unit is 

operating at extremely low ambient 

temperatures. In DOE’s view, if present, 

crankcase heaters and other electric 

resistance heaters for cold weather 

should be operational during the test. 

Under this proposal, if a control system, 

such as a thermostat or electronic 

controller, is used to modulate the 

operation of the heater, it should be 

used as intended per the manufacturer’s 

instructions. DOE is proposing to add 

clarifying language regarding testing 

units with crankcase heaters and 

electric resistance heaters for cold 

weather. 

DOE acknowledges that the types of 

accessories and components that may be 

attached to a beverage vending machine 

are numerous and varied, as noted by 

Royal and NAMA. Regarding Royal’s 

suggestion concerning calculation 

methods for different accessories, 

especially those that are covered under 

other DOE energy conservation 

standards, such as televisions, DOE 

believes that it is more straightforward 

and representative to measure the 

energy use of the BVM model directly, 

including any available energyconsuming accessories that are integral 

to the function of the beverage vending 

machine. Due to the variety of 

accessories that could be incorporated 

into a BVM model, DOE does not find 

it practical to incorporate calculations 

or algorithms into the DOE test 

procedure that would be sufficiently 

representative of the energy use of that 

specific BVM accessory and model. As 

such, DOE is not proposing any 

calculation-based methods for the 

purposes of establishing the energy use 

of BVM models or specific BVM 

accessories at this time. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to clarify the treatment of 

accessories in the DOE test procedure. 

DOE also requests comment on any 

other accessories that may require 

special treatment or exemption. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46923 

B. Summary of the Test Procedure 

Revisions To Account for Low Power 

Modes 

This NOPR also proposes an 

amendment to DOE’s test procedure for 

beverage vending machines, to be 

included in a new Appendix B to 10 

CFR part 431, subpart Q, which is 

intended to be used to demonstrate 

compliance with any new or amended 

standards established as a result of the 

associated ongoing energy conservation 

standards rulemaking (Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–STD–0022). This 

amendment would establish provisions 

to account for equipment with low 

power modes and is proposed to ensure 

greater accuracy in testing. The 

proposed amendment is discussed in 

the following subsections, including 

applicable comments received from 

interested parties, definitions, methods, 

and DOE’s responses. 

1. Characteristics of Low Power Modes 

Many beverage vending machines are 

equipped with low power modes 

designed to be used during periods 

when demand for refrigerated beverages 

is low and there is opportunity to 

reduce equipment energy use without 

greatly affecting consumer utility. The 

features of these modes may include 

(but are not limited to) switching off or 

dimming lights, and raising the 

temperature set point (to which the unit 

cools the product) to a value higher than 

the temperature set point associated 

with the unit’s vending mode. These 

low power modes are typically activated 

during periods when customer traffic is 

known or anticipated to be minimal or 

nonexistent (such as at night or when a 

facility is closed), though they may also 

be activated based on short-term 

historical vend patterns or after a 

specified length of inactivity. Some low 

power modes may be operated on fixed 

schedules, while others may operate 

based on sensor input such as that from 

a motion sensor or customer interface 

on the machine. Individual machines 

may have multiple low power modes, 

such as a fixed low power mode 

allowing the refrigeration system to shut 

off during periods when customers are 

not available and an active low power 

mode during vending periods that dims 

the lights when customer activity is not 

detected after a certain length of time. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004, 

the test method incorporated by 

reference in the current DOE test 

procedure, and ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010, the test method 

DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference in this test procedure NOPR, 

both require that the vending machine 

be ‘‘operated with normal lighting and 

control settings, using only those energy 

management controls that are 

permanently operational and not 

capable of being adjusted by a machine 

operator.’’ (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004 7.1.1(d)) These test 

procedures do not capture the widely 

available user-adjustable low power 

modes of operation in a representative 

manner, and manufacturers that offer 

this functionality are not able to reflect 

the increased efficiency of the unit 

under either of these test methods. 

Additionally, these test methods do 

not specify how to test equipment that 

has permanently operational controls 

that can be adjusted. An example of 

such equipment could be a machine 

with lights that automatically dim after 

a certain period of inactivity, and where 

the length of the period of inactivity 

required to cause the lights to dim can 

be adjusted to one of several values by 

a machine operator. In such a case, the 

lighting controls are permanently 

operational, but adjustable by a machine 

operator. 

Section 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2004 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010 both specify that 

‘‘the test chamber and vending machine 

shall not be disturbed throughout the 

duration of the energy consumption test 

once the measurement instrumentation 

is in place.’’ As already mentioned, DOE 

is aware that some currently available 

beverage vending machines come 

equipped with low power modes or 

features that become active after a 

certain period of inactivity. Due to the 

requirements of section 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1 (both 2004 and 

2010 versions), it is possible for such 

features to become active during the test 

period for unrepresentative periods of 

time. 

2. Comments Received by Interested 

Parties 

DOE received a variety of comments 

on the 2013 BVM Framework describing 

the current use of low power modes in 

BVM testing and the low power modes 

currently available on the market. Some 

of these comments supported capturing 

the effect of low power modes and even 

suggested approaches to account for low 

power modes in the test procedure. 

Other commenters opposed accounting 

for low power mode for several reasons. 

NAMA commented that all equipment 

should be tested as supplied by the 

factory, and only low power modes that 

cannot be disabled by the end user 

should be included in the test because 

allowing other low power modes creates 

the opportunity for the 

misrepresentation of the equipment’s 

energy use and ambiguity within the 

test method. (NAMA, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Royal and NAMA each commented that 

models with user-adjustable controls 

that cannot be disabled should be 

operated in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s recommended mode of 

operation under normal conditions or as 

shipped by the manufacturer, whichever 

results in higher energy use. (Royal, No. 

11 at p. 5; NAMA, No. 8 at p. 4) The 

Joint Comment requested that DOE 

clarify how controls that cannot be 

adjusted in the field are currently 

captured by the DOE test procedures, 

and stated that the current application 

of the DOE test procedure may not be 

adequately reflecting field energy use. 

(Joint Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) The CA 

IOUs encouraged DOE to try to ensure 

that the output of the test procedure 

comes close to representing the realworld energy use of equipment installed 

in the field, consistent with EPCA 

requirements, and especially that low 

power modes do not allow lights to be 

dimmed or powered off for 

uncharacteristically long periods of time 

as ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 

currently permits. (CA IOUs, No. 19 at 

p. 4) 

NAMA commented that, as it 

understands, some equipment has 

power management functions installed 

by the original equipment manufacturer 

that cannot be disabled by the end user 

in any way and, therefore, are active 

during the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1 test, but that some of this 

equipment has energy management 

settings that the user can modify that 

therefore does not meet the 

requirements of the ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1 test settings as currently 

written. (NAMA, No. 8 at p. 4) Royal 

commented that its machines have 

energy management features that are 

built into the software but do not meet 

the requirement in ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010 because the user 

can modify the energy management 

settings, and low power modes are 

accordingly not used during testing. 

(Royal, No. 11 at p. 4) AMS stated that 

its equipment includes controls that can 

be used both to increase operating set 

point temperatures and to decrease 

lighting intensity during periods of no 

sales activity, but that in accordance 

with its interpretation of ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1, these controls have never 

been used during testing. (AMS, No. 17 

at p. 2) AMS further described the low 

power software in its machines, which 

includes lighting and refrigeration low 

power modes that are entered into either 

based on sales history or by operator 

programming, and noted that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46924 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

elevated temperature is prohibited if the 

health and safety controls are set for 

items such as milk, which is a beverage 

but also a perishable item that requires 

strict temperature control. (AMS, No. 17 

at p. 3) AMS also commented that the 

field-allowable times of low power 

mode can vary widely; from 0 to 15 

hours per day during the week and total 

weekend periods, and that any 

benchmark is just a benchmark and 

cannot be expected to exactly reflect the 

true activity of a specific machine in the 

field. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 3) 

Royal did not support the creation of 

a provision to measure the low power 

modes of operation, stating that tests 

should not be conducted or accepted if 

the average product temperature cannot 

be maintained within 36 °F (± 1°F) as 

specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2010. (Royal, No. 8 at p. 5) NAMA 

commented that it does not support the 

creation of a provision to measure the 

impact of low power modes of 

operation, except in the case where an 

energy management system is 

incorporated into the original 

equipment manufacturer design of the 

vending machine and cannot be 

defeated or removed by the end user. 

(NAMA, No. 8 at p. 5) Wittern stated 

that it opposed the creation of a 

provision to measure the impact of low 

power modes of operation as it would 

add another level of complexity, and it 

wants to keep testing, reporting, and 

compliance related issues to a 

minimum. (Wittern, No. 16 at p. 2) AMS 

agreed that the present test method does 

not capture the energy savings potential 

of optional power-saving modes. (AMS, 

No. 17 at p. 4) 

The CA IOUs commented that 

throughout the rulemaking process, 

DOE should collect information from 

industry, purchasers, and consumers on 

usage profiles of vending machines in 

order to best represent real-world energy 

use in the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 

19 at p. 4) The CA IOUs also 

commented that DOE should include 

provisions to measure the energy use of 

beverage vending machines in low 

power modes and get an understanding 

of how such states are employed in 

installed equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 19 

at p. 4) The Joint Comment stated that 

it generally supports the inclusion of 

test procedure provisions to capture the 

energy savings benefit of controls, but 

encouraged DOE to attempt to use field 

use data so that the test procedures can 

reasonably reflect the actual energy 

savings from these controls. (Joint 

Comment, No. 13 at p. 2) AMS 

recommended that if evaluation of 

energy-saving options is to be done at 

all, it should be done in a totally 

separate specification and procedure 

because the wide range of energy-saving 

options would be very difficult to 

standardize in the basic MDEC 

requirements. (AMS, No. 17 at p. 3) 

AMS further commented that if 

measurements of low power modes are 

made they should be done with fixed 

temperature, lighting, and any other 

low-energy settings that may be used 

and be done for a fixed period of time 

less than 24 hours with calculations 

applied to determine the potential 

savings per 24-hour period. (AMS, No. 

17 at p. 3) 

3. DOE’s Proposed Low Power Mode 

Test Provisions 

DOE is proposing to amend its test 

procedure to provide clear and 

consistent provisions for testing 

beverage vending machines both in low 

power mode and in vending 

environments and to indicate what 

settings are to be used for the testing of 

machines with energy management 

controls that are permanently 

operational (meaning those that cannot 

be disabled) but can be adjusted by the 

operator. DOE acknowledges the 

concerns of interested parties but 

believes that a BVM test procedure that 

accounts for low power modes of 

operation is necessary for accuracy of 

testing, since beverage vending 

machines are commonly equipped and 

operated with low power modes in the 

field. Sections a, b, and f of this section 

III.B.3 discuss definitions related to the 

low power mode test procedure, a 

physical test method DOE considered, 

and DOE’s proposed method for 

accounting for low power modes of 

operation in the DOE test procedure, 

respectively. 

a. Definitions Related to the Low Power 

Mode Test Procedure 

DOE is proposing to allow 

manufacturers of equipment with a low 

power mode to enable those features 

during a fixed period of time during the 

BVM test procedure. DOE proposes to 

define ‘‘low power mode’’ as a state in 

which a beverage vending machine’s 

lighting, refrigeration, and/or other 

energy-using systems are automatically 

adjusted (without user intervention) 

such that they consume less energy than 

they consume in an active vending 

environment when the beverage 

vending machine is capable of 

dispensing sealed beverages at the 

intended vending temperature 

(36 ± 1 °F). 

DOE also notes that it may be 

beneficial to differentiate between low 

power modes that affect the refrigeration 

system and allow the cabinet 

temperature to increase during a 

specified period and those that affect 

other energy-consuming accessories, 

such as lighting, display signage, or 

vending equipment. As such, DOE 

proposes to define ‘‘refrigeration system 

low power mode’’ and ‘‘accessory low 

power mode.’’ Refrigeration system low 

power mode would be defined as a state 

in which a beverage vending machine’s 

refrigeration system is in low power 

mode. To qualify as refrigeration system 

low power mode, the average next-tovend temperature must automatically 

(without user intervention) raise to 40

°F or higher and remain above this 

threshold for at least one hour. 

‘‘Accessory low power mode’’ would be 

defined as a state in which a beverage 

vending machine’s lighting and/or other 

non-refrigeration energy-using systems 

are in low power mode. This may 

include, but is not limited to, dimming 

or turning off lights or display signage, 

but does not include adjustment of the 

refrigeration system. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definitions of ‘‘low power 

mode,’’ ‘‘refrigeration low power 

mode,’’ and ‘‘accessory low power 

mode.’’ 

b. Potential Low Power Mode Test 

Methods Based on Physical Testing 

DOE considered several options to 

account for low power modes in the 

DOE test procedure for beverage 

vending machines, including physical 

testing and calculation-based methods. 

DOE recognizes that objectively 

determining the performance of low 

power mode operation by accounting for 

both refrigeration and accessory low 

power modes would be the most 

accurate way to best represent the 

variety of low power mode controls 

available. In addition, a physical test 

method would provide an unambiguous 

verification of low power mode efficacy 

and performance. As such, DOE 

considered an approach to account for 

low power modes of operation using 

two separate physical test procedures; 

one for the active vending state and one 

for the low power mode. This approach 

could combine the respective measured 

energy use from each test using a 

calculation. Such a method may be able 

to reflect the variations among different 

types of refrigeration low power modes 

and would physically verify the 

performance of the refrigeration low 

power mode. However, because this 

approach would not account for the 

pull-down from low power mode to 

return to vending state, DOE determined 

that a method that does not account for 

pull-down energy use is not sufficiently 

representative of the energy use of this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46925 

equipment over a representative cycle of 

use. 

DOE also considered an approach in 

which equipment was allowed to enter 

low power mode, including both 

refrigeration and accessory low power 

modes, during a low power mode test 

period and required to return to the 

specified average next-to-vend 

temperature at the conclusion of the 

test. This would result in a test that 

included an 18-hour vending state test 

period, followed by a 6-hour low power 

mode test period, and finally a pulldown test period when the beverage 

vending machine would be required to 

return to 36 ± 1 °F for a duration of time, 

for example 1 minute, prior to 

concluding the test. The energy use 

associated with the 6-hour low power 

mode test period would then be 

adjusted to account for the length of the 

pull-down period to represent the 

energy use associated with a 6-hour 

period when vending is not required. 

For example, for a BVM model that took 

1 hour to pull down, the energy use 

associated with the 6-hour low power 

mode test period would be reduced by 

1 hour (i.e., multiplied by 5⁄6). The 

measured DEC for that BVM model 

would then consist of the energy use 

associated with the vending state test 

period, the pull-down test period, and 

the adjusted low power mode test 

period. Such a method would provide 

an accurate representation of the variety 

of low power modes used in beverage 

vending machines over a 24-hour cycle 

of use. 

While physical testing of low power 

mode and any necessary pull-down 

requirements would be the most 

accurate test method to account for both 

accessory and refrigeration low power 

modes of operation, it is DOE’s 

understanding that refrigeration low 

power modes are extremely variable in 

terms of their control strategies and 

operation and, thus, this method may be 

difficult to implement in a repeatable 

manner. For example, some refrigerated 

beverage vending machines may have a 

pull-down period in excess of 6-hours, 

in which case this method would not be 

appropriate. For those models, the 

energy consumed during the low power 

mode test period and the pull-down test 

period could be scaled to 6-hours and 

added to the vending state test period 

energy use. However, such an approach 

would benefit beverage vending 

machines with pull-down periods 

longer than 6-hours and may provide a 

means for manufacturers to exploit the 

test procedure by designing equipment 

with extremely slow pull-down periods. 

Since this would reduce customer 

utility, DOE does not believe pull-down 

periods in excess of 6-hours would be 

common, but the possibility still exists 

to unfairly advantage equipment with 

extremely long pull-down periods. 

In addition, DOE believes that some 

refrigeration low power modes may 

require specific instructions from the 

manufacturer to modify or adjust the 

control systems precisely to 

accommodate the specific 6-hour time 

frame for low power mode operation, 

since the control variables are not 

always uniquely controllable via the 

user interface. This would also reduce 

the consistency and repeatability of 

such a physical test method and would 

make the method impractical to 

implement. Due to the difficulty of 

representing the wide variety of 

refrigeration low power modes in a 

consistent, fair, and reasonable manner, 

DOE determined that a purely physical 

test method may not be feasible. 

c. Potential Low Power Mode Test 

Methods Using a Combination of 

Physical Testing for Accessory Low 

Power Mode and Calculated Credits for 

Refrigeration Low Power Mode 

To address the issue with 

repeatability, DOE also considered an 

alternate calculation-based approach. In 

this method, the 6-hour low power 

mode test period would only employ 

the accessory low power modes and the 

refrigeration system low power mode 

would not be engaged. Specifically, 

accessory low power modes that do not 

affect the cabinet temperature may be 

activated to adjust lighting, display 

signs, vending equipment, and other 

energized accessories to their minimally 

energy-consuming state. However, all 

other requirements of the DOE test 

procedure remain unchanged, the unit 

being tested must remain connected to 

its power source throughout the test, 

and the test package temperature 

measurements taken during the low 

power mode test are incorporated into 

the integrated average temperature 

calculation. Under this method, 

refrigeration low power modes should 

not be enabled during the physical low 

power mode test. DOE believes that 

accessory low power modes are 

somewhat more consistent and easier to 

characterize under a physical test 

procedure and the resulting energy use 

reduction associated with the accessory 

low power mode test procedure will 

accurately represent the efficacy of 

accessory low power mode controls. 

DOE is aware, however, that beverage 

vending machines may be equipped 

with refrigeration low power modes that 

have the capability of saving energy in 

the field when the amount of extra 

energy consumption required to pull 

down from the elevated temperatures is 

less than the amount of energy saved 

during the refrigeration low power 

mode when the cabinet temperature is 

above the vending temperature. To 

account for the energy use of the 

refrigeration low power mode and the 

associated pull-down period in a 

consistent and repeatable manner, DOE 

also considered providing a calculation 

credit to those machines equipped with 

a refrigeration low power mode. 

Specifically, DOE is proposing to amend 

its test procedure to allow a credit equal 

to 3 percent of the measured DEC of any 

unit equipped with a refrigeration low 

power mode. 

DOE developed the 3 percent value 

based upon data from tests of the 

refrigeration low power modes of five 

different models (four Class A and one 

Class B). All units were tested by a 

third-party test laboratory using the 

current DOE BVM test procedure. The 

models selected represented a crosssection of the largest BVM 

manufacturers in the United States. 

Each unit was programmed to enter the 

low power mode at a specified time 

after temperature stabilization had been 

achieved and to exit the low power 

mode at a second specified time. Data 

was collected throughout the duration 

of the low power mode and 

continuously through the ensuing pulldown period until the next-to-vend 

beverage temperature was again within 

the DOE test-specified 36 °F ± 1 °F. 

The resulting test data was used to 

calculate approximate energy savings 

during a 6-hour window during which 

the average next-to-vend temperature 

was outside of the bounds of the 

required value for the DOE test 

procedure. This would correspond to 

the unit entering the refrigeration low 

power mode during a time when 

vending would not be expected to 

occur, and DOE used 6 hours as a 

representative duration of time for such 

a period. The energy consumption from 

the beginning of the window until the 

cabinet temperature had risen to a 

particular average next-to-vend 

temperature Tmax was added to the 

pulldown energy use from that same 

Tmax back to within the DOE test 

specified 36 °F ± 1 °F average next-tovend temperature. Tmax was selected 

such that the time spent in the low 

power mode plus the time spent to pull 

down was as close to 6 hours as possible 

within the resolution of the data, 

without being over 6 hours. The low 

power mode energy consumption was 

calculated as the sum of the energy 

consumption during the period when 

the temperature was ‘‘out-of-bounds,’’ 

the energy consumption in that portion 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46926 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

of the pulldown, and, in order to 

account for the fact that lighting low 

power modes were employed with 

refrigeration low power modes, the 

amount of lighting energy that would 

have been used for normal operation in 

active vending mode was assumed 

during the duration of the low power 

mode. A DEC value was generated by 

using the ‘‘out-of-bounds’’ energy 

consumption and the time-averaged 

steady state energy consumption from 

the DOE test procedure scaled by the 

remaining time to 24 hours. The percent 

savings from the refrigeration low power 

mode was then calculated by comparing 

this DEC to the DEC results of the DOE 

test procedure for the same unit. 

Using this method, the energy savings 

from refrigeration low power modes in 

units tested averaged approximately 

2.4%. DOE estimated that its 

methodology was conservative, because 

the out of bounds time used in the 

calculations was always less than the 6 

hours out of bounds time being used as 

representative of typical applications. 

Therefore, DOE rounded up, using 3% 

as an estimate of savings attributable to 

refrigeration low power modes. In light 

of this initial investigation, DOE 

believes that 3 percent is representative 

of the refrigeration low power mode that 

is activated such that the average nextto-vend temperature is raised for a total 

of 6 hours, including both low power 

mode and pull-down, and therefore 

aligns with the methodology DOE is 

proposing for testing of other low power 

modes. DOE believes that a calculated 

energy credit will provide a reasonable 

representation of refrigeration low 

power modes without sacrificing test 

procedure repeatability, favoring 

specific technologies, or unnecessarily 

increasing burden. 

d. Refrigeration Low Power Mode 

Verification Test Protocol 

DOE recognizes that a calculated 

energy credit will not account for 

differences in performance or efficacy 

among different types of refrigeration 

low power modes and will not 

objectively verify the performance or 

existence of a refrigerated low power 

mode. Therefore, a procedure to verify 

the existence of a refrigeration low 

power mode, as defined, may be 

required to prevent BVM models from 

taking the 3 percent refrigeration low 

power mode credit without an effective 

refrigeration low power mode included 

in that BVM model. Such a refrigeration 

low power mode verification test 

method would include initiating the 

refrigeration low power mode after 

completion of the 24-hour BVM test 

period, including the 18-hour active 

vending test period and the 6-hour low 

power mode test period, and recording 

the average temperature of the standard 

test packages in the next-to-vend 

beverage positions for the next 2 hours. 

Over the course of this 2-hour period, 

the instantaneous average next-to-vend 

beverage temperatures, that is the 

spatial average of all next-to-vend 

beverages, must increase above 40 °F 

and remain above 40 °F for at least one 

hour. The refrigerated beverage vending 

machine must also be capable of 

automatically returning itself to its 

normal operating conditions at the 

conclusion of the refrigeration low 

power mode. Therefore, at the 

conclusion of the 2-hour refrigeration 

low power mode verification test 

period, the refrigerated beverage 

vending machine must return to normal 

vending temperatures automatically 

without direct physical intervention by 

testing personnel. DOE notes that this 

validation test is not required to verify 

the DEC of BVM models but will be 

employed by DOE for enforcement 

purposes to verify the existence of a 

refrigeration low power mode. 

e. DOE’s Proposed Low Power Mode 

Test Method 

After considering the various 

methods, DOE determined that the 

calculation-based approach to 

accounting for refrigeration low power 

modes is the best methodology available 

to ensure accuracy of representation of 

energy use, consistent and equitable 

treatment among models and 

repeatability of the test procedure 

without making the test method unduly 

burdensome to conduct. In contrast, 

DOE is proposing to establish a physical 

test that consists of a 6-hour time period 

that allows accessory low power modes 

that automatically disable or adjust 

lighting, displays, or other low power 

mode systems to be enabled to account 

for accessory low power modes, and a 

separate calculation approach to 

account for refrigeration low power 

modes. 

Under this proposal, equipment with 

a low power mode would stabilize and 

operate under normal test procedure 

conditions, with all equipment and 

accessories energized as they would be 

when the equipment is capable of 

actively refrigerating and vending sealed 

beverages and as specified in section 

III.A.11, for the first 18 hours of the test 

period. In addition, unless specified 

otherwise by another portion of the test 

procedure, DOE is proposing that all 

low power mode control features that 

cannot be disabled, but can be adjusted, 

are to be adjusted such that the DEC is 

maximized, to best represent the likely 

performance of the equipment in the 

field in active vending mode. DOE is 

also proposing to adopt in its test 

procedure a modification to ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1 requiring that 

any party performing the test procedure 

provide, if necessary, any physical 

stimuli or other input to the machine 

that may be needed to prevent 

automatic activation of low power 

modes during the vending state test 

period. Such stimuli could include 

creating movement near a unit being 

tested or pressing a selection button on 

the machine (without vending a test 

package). In the example above, in 

which the lights on a particular BVM 

dim after extended inactivity, the setting 

specified would be the one with the 

longest period of inactivity required 

before the lights would dim and 

periodic physical stimuli would be 

needed based on that period to prevent 

the lights from dimming. This would be 

most representative of the energy use of 

the equipment in active vending mode, 

when the equipment is capable of 

refrigerating and dispensing sealed 

beverages. 

For equipment with a low power 

mode, the low power mode may be 

enabled for no more than the final 6 

hours of the test, or from hour 18 to 

hour 24 of the 24-hour test. The 6-hour 

low power mode test period is intended 

to represent off hours between two 

periods of vending. The low power 

mode should account for both 

refrigeration system low power modes 

and accessory low power modes. While 

there is a wide range of types of low 

power mode controls and time periods, 

for which these controls are enabled, 

DOE believes a timeframe of 6 hours is 

a reasonable representation of average 

field use. 

To determine the measured DEC of a 

given BVM model equipped with a 

refrigeration low power mode, the 

energy use measured during the 24-hour 

BVM test procedure, including the 6- 

hour accessory low power mode test 

period if applicable, will be reduced by 

3 percent (or multiplied by 0.97). 

Under this proposal, the rating metric 

for all equipment would continue to be 

the energy use measured during the 

total 24-hour test period, including any 

calculated adjustments. 

Further, DOE proposes adopting a 

refrigeration low power mode validation 

procedure, to verify the existence and 

performance of the refrigeration low 

power mode on applicable BVM 

models. However, this refrigeration low 

power mode validation procedure will 

not be required for manufacturer 

certifications of compliance and will 

only be used to confirm the existence of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46927 

a refrigeration low power mode for the 

purposes of applying the refrigeration 

low power mode credit. 

f. Equipment With Multiple Energy Use 

States 

DOE recognizes that its proposal to 

only recognize and account for three 

operating modes, that is, refrigeration 

system low power mode, accessory low 

power mode, and active vending mode, 

may not account for equipment with 

multiple energy use states. For example, 

some equipment may have controls that 

automatically adjust lighting levels 

during periods of lower vending 

activity, such as times during a facility’s 

normal operating hours when few or no 

purchases are occurring, in addition to 

the more dramatic low power mode that 

is engaged when the facility is closed. 

This situation may be representative of 

field use in some situations, such as 

schools, where there may be times of 

concentrated activity during the day 

interspersed with periods of inactivity 

during which a partial low power mode 

is entered. 

DOE considered several approaches to 

account for these types of vending state 

low power modes. The first of these 

approaches is to permit an additional 

time period within the BVM test 

procedure during which lighting and 

control settings are permitted to be at 

manufacturer-recommended rather than 

maximum-energy-use settings and 

during which external inputs to prevent 

low power modes are not required. This 

could, for example, constitute 9 hours, 

or one-half of the remaining vending 

state test period after the 6-hour low 

power mode test period has been taken 

into account. 

The second of these approaches is to 

continue allowing a single low power 

mode test period in the DOE test 

procedure, and to also offer a 

calculation-based energy offset to those 

machines equipped with additional low 

power modes designed to operate 

during active vending periods when the 

beverage vending machine is capable of 

dispensing sealed beverages at the 

intended vending temperature 

(36 ± 1 °F). This method would 

include calculation of the direct and 

indirect energy use associated with such 

vending state low power modes. To 

implement such a method, default 

assumptions would be necessary for the 

following variables: 

(1) The length of time vending state 

low power modes are employed, 

(2) the efficiency of the compressor, 

(3) the features generally controlled 

by a vending state low power mode, and 

(4) the portion of energy produced 

from the lights or other features that 

becomes heat in the case and increases 

the refrigeration load. 

After consideration, DOE has decided 

to propose the methodology in which 

equipment is prohibited from entering 

low power modes of any kind outside of 

the 6-hour low power mode test period. 

A wide range of energy management 

systems are available in beverage 

vending machines, and DOE believes 

that an 18-hour time period 

representative of an active, vending 

state at full power followed by a 6-hour 

low power mode test period provides a 

consistent methodology for testing that 

is applicable to the most BVM models 

and is reasonably representative of field 

use. DOE also notes that the low power 

modes designed to operate during 

vending periods, such as the lighting 

controls discussed above, can be 

enabled during the low power mode test 

period and accounted for in the same 

manner as any other low power mode 

operation. Only in the case where a 

beverage vending machine is equipped 

with both a more aggressive low power 

mode, designed for periods of facility 

closure, and a partial low power mode, 

designed for periods of inactivity during 

operating hours, will the operation of 

the two different low power modes not 

be taken into account independently. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that units run at the most 

energy-consuming lighting and control 

settings, except as specified in section 

III.A.11, during the BVM test procedure, 

except for during the 6-hour low power 

mode test period. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require, as part of the test 

procedure, whatever stimuli are 

necessary to prevent automatic 

activation of low power modes during 

the vending state test procedure. 

DOE requests comment on whether its 

proposed method is representative of 

equipment that can use low power 

modes. DOE requests comment as to 

whether the proposed method reflects 

typical field use. 

DOE requests comment on whether 6 

hours is an appropriate length of time 

for the low power mode test period. 

DOE requests information on the 

prevalence of non-cycling (variablespeed) compressors in the BVM 

industry. 

DOE requests comment on whether a 

credit equal to 3 percent of the 

measured DEC is reflective of the 6 

hours of time in refrigeration low power 

mode. 

DOE requests comment on the 

refrigeration low power mode validation 

test and, particularly, if a one hour time 

period in which the instantaneous 

average of all standard test packages in 

the next-to-vend beverage position is 

maintained above 40 °F is appropriate to 

verify the performance of refrigeration 

low power modes. 

DOE requests comment on whether a 

physical test method would be a more 

representative and accurate method to 

account for low power mode operation, 

including refrigeration low power mode. 

IV. Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

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

this action was not subject to review 

under the Executive Order by the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) 

for any rule that by law must be 

proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. A regulatory 

flexibility analysis examines the impact 

of the rule on small entities and 

considers alternative ways of reducing 

negative effects. Also, as required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR at 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed this proposed rule, 

which would amend the test procedure 

for refrigerated beverage vending 

machines, under the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. DOE tentatively 

concludes and certifies that the 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

result in a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this certification is 

set forth below. 

For the BVM manufacturing industry, 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has set a size threshold, which 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

defines those entities classified as 

‘‘small businesses’’ for the purpose of 

the statute. DOE used the SBA’s size 

standards to determine whether any 

small entities would be required to 

comply with the rule. The size 

standards are codified at 13 CFR part 

121. The size standards are listed by 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. BVM 

manufacturers are classified under 

NAICS 333318, ‘‘Other Commercial and 

Service Industry Machinery 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,000 employees or less for 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

DOE conducted a market survey of 

small business manufacturers of 

equipment covered by this rulemaking 

using all available public information. 

DOE’s research involved the review of 

individual company Web sites and 

marketing research tools (e.g., Dun and 

Bradstreet reports, Manta) to create a list 

of companies that manufacture or sell 

beverage vending machines covered by 

this rulemaking. Using these sources, 

DOE identified seven manufacturers of 

beverage vending machines. 

DOE then reviewed these data to 

determine whether the entities met the 

SBA’s definition of a small business 

manufacturer of beverage vending 

machines and screened out companies 

that do not offer equipment covered by 

this rulemaking, do not meet the 

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

foreign owned and operated. Based on 

this review, DOE has identified five 

companies that would be considered 

small manufacturers, which represents 

71 percent of the national BVM 

manufacturers. 

Table IV.1 stratifies the small 

businesses according to their number of 

employees. The smallest company has 2 

employees and the largest company has 

375 employees. The majority of the 

small businesses affected by this 

rulemaking (80 percent) have fewer than 

200 employees. According to DOE’s 

analysis, annual revenues associated 

with these small manufacturers were 

estimated at $107.3 million ($21.5 

million average annual revenue per 

small manufacturer). 

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

Number of employees Number of small 

businesses 

Percentage of 

small businesses 

Cumulative 

percentage 

1–25 ........................................................................................................................... 2 40.0% 40.0% 

26–50 ......................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 40.0 

51–75 ......................................................................................................................... 1 20.0 60.0 

76–100 ....................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 60.0 

101–200 ..................................................................................................................... 1 20.0 80.0 

201–300 ..................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 80.0 

301–400 ..................................................................................................................... 1 20.0 100.0 

401–500 ..................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 100.0 

501–1000 ................................................................................................................... 0 0.0 100.0 

Total ........................................................................................................................... 5 

This NOPR proposes to update the 

industry test procedures referenced in 

the DOE test procedure for refrigerated 

beverage vending machines. In addition, 

DOE proposes to do the following: 

(1) Eliminate the requirement of a test 

performed at the 90 °F ambient test 

condition; 

(2) establish a procedure to test 

combination vending machines; 

(3) clarify how to load the vending 

machine models when conducting the 

DOE test procedure; 

(4) specify the characteristics of the 

standard product; 

(5) clarify the next-to-vend 

temperature test condition; 

(6) establish a definition of ‘‘fully 

cooled’’ to more clearly differentiate 

Class A and Class B equipment; 

(7) specify the placement of 

thermocouples during testing; 

(8) add provisions to allow for 

refrigerated beverage vending machines 

that cannot achieve the currently 

prescribed 36 °F average of next-to-vend 

beverage temperatures to be tested at the 

lowest application product temperature; 

(9) clarify the treatment of specific 

components and accessories in the test 

procedure; and 

(10) add a method to account for 

energy impacts of low power modes. 

All beverage vending machines 

covered by this proposed rule are 

currently required to be tested using the 

DOE test procedure to show compliance 

with established energy conservation 

standards. Manufacturers must use the 

DOE test procedure established in the 

2006 BVM test procedure final rule to 

demonstrate compliance with existing 

standards. That test procedure 

incorporates by reference ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 and 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004 and consists 

of one 24-hour test at standard rating 

conditions to determine DEC of covered 

beverage vending machines during a 

representative cycle of use. 71 FR 

71340, 71355 (Dec. 8, 2006). DOE 

estimates the cost of conducting the 

DOE test procedure as $5,000 per 24- 

hour test. 

Six of the amendments proposed in 

this test procedure NOPR will not 

change the testing burden for covered 

equipment. These include the 

amendments discussing the test 

procedure for combination vending 

machines, loading the vending 

machines when conducting the test 

procedure, specifying the characteristics 

of the standard test package, clarifying 

the next-to-vend temperature test 

condition, establishing a definition of 

‘‘fully cooled,’’ and specifying the 

placement of thermocouples during 

testing. Specifically, the amendments 

regarding the next-to-vend temperature 

condition and the definition of ‘‘fully 

cooled’’ serve only to establish new 

definitions that will clarify DOE’s 

existing test procedure requirements. 

This test procedure NOPR also 

proposes five amendments to the 

current DOE test procedure that may 

impact the test procedure burden. The 

expected incremental increases or 

decreases of costs for conducting the 

test procedure specific to each 

amendment proposed are discussed 

below. 

As discussed in section III.A.1, 

updating the referenced industry test 

procedures will not change the test 

procedure burden because it will not 

change the technical requirements of the 

test procedure. 

Eliminating testing at the 90 °F 

ambient test condition should 

substantially lessen the testing burden 

on manufacturers, as it decreases the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46929 

11U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. 2012. National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates. Washington, DC. 

Available at www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_

nat.htm#17-0000. 

12U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. 2013. Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation—Management, Professional, and 

Related Employees. Washington, DC. 

testing requirements from two tests, 

totaling approximately 120 hours 

duration, to one test of approximately 

60 hours duration. DOE estimates the 

decrease in burden to be 10 hours of 

labor and 60 hours of facility use, which 

reduces the testing cost for each 

beverage vending machine unit by 

roughly $2,500, or half the cost of 

conducting the existing test procedure. 

Establishing a definition and 

associated verification test method for 

determining if a given BVM model is 

‘‘fully cooled’’ is not required for 

product certification. However, if 

manufacturers were to elect to verify 

equipment classification using this 

optional procedure, the incremental 

burden associated with doing so would 

be the placement and recording of 

temperature for 4 additional standard 

test packages. DOE estimates this cost as 

$5 in material costs and 4 hours of an 

engineer’s time for each standard test 

package, which can be amortized over 

the total number of tested models. In 

addition, DOE estimates the incremental 

cost of a thermocouple and associated 

length of thermocouple wire as $30 per 

standard test package. The incremental 

burden associated with placing these 

additional standard test packages is 

estimated as approximately 30 minutes 

of an engineer’s time for each test. DOE 

estimated the cost of an engineer’s time 

based on an average hourly salary of 

$41.44 for an engineer completing this 

task.11 Fringe benefits are estimated at 

30 percent of total compensation, which 

brings the hourly costs to employers to 

$53.87.12 DOE does not believe the 

additional calculations will induce any 

incremental burden when performing 

the DOE test procedure. In total, this 

optional test would increase the average 

test burden by approximately $61.18 for 

each model. 

Establishing testing provisions at the 

lowest application product temperature 

affects only a very small percentage of 

equipment on the market, estimated to 

be less than 2 percent of shipments. 

Manufacturers who make equipment 

affected by this provision should 

experience a decrease in burden because 

they will no longer have to seek waivers 

for equipment that cannot maintain the 

36 °F ± 1 °F average next-to-vend 

temperature for the duration of the test. 

For these manufacturers, DOE estimates 

a savings of 4 hours of labor for each 

BVM model, or $215.48 per model. DOE 

bases its estimate on the average hourly 

compensation for an engineer of $53.87, 

as previously estimated. 

Clarifying the treatment of various 

and components and accessories in the 

DOE test procedure should not alter the 

technical requirements of the DOE test 

procedure, since these additional 

specifications are meant to clarify 

existing requirements. However, DOE 

understands that the treatment of some 

of these accessories and components 

may have been inconsistent due to lack 

of clarity or misinterpretation of the 

DOE test procedure. Therefore, DOE is 

accounting for the incremental burden 

associated with properly configuring 

BVM models for testing in accordance 

with these new component 

specifications. The specific 

clarifications pertain to moneyprocessing equipment, interior lighting, 

external displays and screens, antisweat heaters, condensate pan heaters 

and pumps, illuminated temperature 

displays, condenser filters, security 

covers, coated coils, general purpose 

outlets, and crankcase heaters and 

electric resistance heaters for cold 

weather. The adjustments to these 

accessories will require additional 

attention by test personnel. DOE 

estimates that it may require up to an 

additional hour to make all the 

applicable adjustments before testing 

begins. DOE estimates the incremental 

costs associated with adjusting 

accessories as $53.87 for each tested 

model, based on the assumption that it 

would take an additional hour of an 

engineer’s time to attend to the tested 

model at the same labor rate assumed 

previously, $53.87 per hour. 

Amendments in this NOPR expanding 

the testing methodology to incorporate 

lighting and control settings to account 

for low power modes will require 

additional attention by test personnel. 

Specifically, DOE estimates it will 

require 1 hour to identify the 

appropriate time to initiate the low 

power mode test period and make any 

necessary adjustments to begin low 

power mode operation at that time. 

During the active vending mode test 

procedure, DOE estimates that it will 

take a maximum of 10 additional hours 

of an engineer’s time to periodically 

monitor the operation of the tested unit 

and interact with the unit if necessary 

to ensure that the unit does not re-enter 

a low power mode state. DOE does not 

believe that multiplying the DEC by 0.97 

will increase the burden associated with 

conducting the DOE test procedure. 

However, DOE is also proposing an 

optional refrigeration low power mode 

verification test that manufacturers may 

elect to perform to ensure their 

equipment meets the requirements of a 

refrigeration low power mode, which 

would increase the test burden. DOE 

estimates that this test would require an 

additional 4 hours of test time, 2 hours 

to allow the refrigeration low power 

mode to initiate and maintain the 

adjusted refrigeration state and an 

assumed 2 hours to return to 36 ± 1 °F 

to verify that the BVM model can 

automatically return to vending 

conditions. DOE estimates the 

incremental costs associated with 

conducting the low power mode test as 

$592.57 for each model tested, based on 

the assumption that it would take an 

engineer an additional 11 hours to 

attend to the tested model at the same 

labor rate assumed previously, $53.87 

per hour. If also accounting for the 

optional refrigeration low power mode 

verification test method, the 

incremental cost of the low power mode 

test procedure amendments increases to 

$808.05. 

All of the amendments and 

clarifications proposed in this NOPR, 

taken together, will result in an overall 

reduction in burden for manufacturers 

conducting the DOE test procedure due, 

primarily, to the removal of the 

requirement to test at the 90 °F ambient 

condition. On average, the cost of 

testing covered beverage vending 

machines would be reduced by 

approximately $1,900 per model, or by 

40 percent per manufacturer, not 

including the optional tests that are not 

required for certification of BVM 

models. 

DOE believes that the proposed test 

procedure amendments would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities due 

to decreased testing cost burden. 

Therefore, the preparation of a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. DOE will transmit the 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

DOE requests comment on its 

certification that the proposed test 

procedure changes will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of refrigerated beverage 

vending machines must certify to DOE 

that their equipment complies with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46930 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedure for refrigerated beverage 

vending machines, including any 

amendments adopted for that test 

procedure. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

beverage vending machines. 76 FR 

12422 (March 7, 2011). The collectionof-information requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB Control 

Number 1910–1400. The public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

amendments to its test procedure that 

may be used to implement future energy 

conservation standards for refrigerated 

beverage vending machines. DOE has 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

The rule is covered by Categorical 

Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that 

interpret or amend an existing rule 

without changing the environmental 

effect, as set forth in DOE’s NEPA 

regulations in appendix A to subpart D, 

10 CFR part 1021. This rule will not 

affect the quality or distribution of 

energy usage and therefore will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

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

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR at 13735. DOE 

has examined this proposed rule and 

has determined that it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the equipment that is the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; Pub.104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to assess 

the effects of Federal regulatory actions 

on State, local, and Tribal governments 

and the private sector. For proposed 

regulatory actions likely to result in a 

rule that may cause expenditures by 

State, local, and Tribal governments in 

the aggregate or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish estimates of the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

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

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR at 12820. (This policy is 

also available at http://energy.gov/gc/

office-general-counsel.) DOE reviewed 

today’s proposed rule pursuant to 

UMRA and its policy, and DOE 

determined that the rule contains 

neither an intergovernmental mandate, 

nor a mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year. Accordingly, no further 

assessment or analysis is required under 

UMRA. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46931 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

regulation, if promulgated as a final 

rule, would not result in any takings 

that might require compensation under 

the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under guidelines established 

by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB’s 

guidelines were published in 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published in 67 FR 

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

today’s proposed rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines, and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA, Office of 

Management and Budget, a Statement of 

Energy Effects for any proposed 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that (1) is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any proposed 

significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

This regulatory action to amend the 

test procedure for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 or any successor 

order. Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

for this rulemaking. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91), DOE must comply with section 32 

of the Federal Energy Administration 

Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–275), as 

amended by the Federal Energy 

Administration Authorization Act of 

1977 (Pub. L. 95–70). Section 32 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. (15 U.S.C. 788 section 

32) In addition, section 32(c) requires 

DOE to consult with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the 

impact of the commercial or industry 

standards on competition. 

This proposed rule incorporates 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standard: ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Vending 

Machines for Sealed Beverages.’’ DOE 

has evaluated this standard and is 

unable to conclude whether it fully 

complies with the requirements of 

section 32(b) of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act (i.e., whether they 

were developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review). 

As required by section 32(c) of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 as amended, DOE will consult 

with the Attorney General and the 

Chairman of the Federal Trade 

Commission about the impact on 

competition of requiring manufacturers 

to use the test methods contained in this 

standard prior to prescribing a final 

rule. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

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. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/73. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their 

systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this NOPR. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make a follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public meeting 

and until the end of the comment 

period, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings 

and any aspect of the rulemaking. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46932 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this NOPR. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this NOPR. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for the test procedure 

for refrigerated beverage vending 

machines and provide docket number 

EE–2013–BT–TP–0045 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

number 1904–AD07. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery two well-marked copies: One 

copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46933 

(1) DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to update its test procedure to 

incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2010. 

(2) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to update the referenced 

method of test for the measurement of 

refrigerated volume in its test procedure 

from section 5 of ANSI/AHAM HRF–1– 

2004 to Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 

3.1–2010. 

(3) DOE requests comment on 

whether the methodology in Appendix 

C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2010 

for the measurement of refrigerated 

volume is more appropriate for beverage 

vending machines than the 

methodology outlined in section 4 of 

AHAM HRF–1–2008. 

(4) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to eliminate the requirement to 

conduct testing at the 90 °F ambient test 

condition. 

(5) DOE requests comment on the 

applicability of the existing test 

procedure, as clarified, to combination 

vending machines. 

(6) DOE proposes to add language to 

the DOE test procedure in Appendix A 

and Appendix B to clarify the loading 

requirements for covered BVM models. 

(7) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed clarification that the standard 

product shall be 12-ounce cans or 20- 

ounce bottles, for BVM models that are 

capable of holding cans or bottles, 

respectively, filled with a liquid with a 

density of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F. 

(8) DOE requests comment on the 

need to maintain the flexibility of 

specifying the standard product as that 

specified by the manufacturer for 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines that are not capable 

of holding 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce 

bottles. DOE specifically requests 

examples of BVM models that might 

require this flexibility and what type of 

standard products they are tested with 

currently. 

(9) DOE requests comment on the 

sufficiency of the existing requirements 

regarding standard test packages. If the 

existing language is not sufficiently 

clear, DOE requests comments and 

recommendations regarding what 

additional clarifications might be 

necessary to ensure consistency and 

repeatability of test results. 

(10) DOE also requests comment on 

its proposed definition of ‘‘integrated 

average temperature’’ for beverage 

vending machines. 

(11) DOE requests comment on 

whether the proposed definition for 

‘‘integrated average temperature’’ aligns 

with standard practice in industry, and 

whether any manufacturers have been 

maintaining the 36 °F (± 1 °F) next-tovend temperature constantly throughout 

the test used for DOE certification. 

(12) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definition of ‘‘fully cooled.’’ 

DOE would appreciate comment as to 

whether the proposed definition aligns 

with the classifications of Class A and 

Class B equipment used in industry. 

(13) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed fully cooled validation test 

method. Specifically, DOE requests 

comment as to whether 10 °F is an 

appropriate threshold to differentiate 

fully cooled equipment and any 

incremental burden on manufacturers 

associated with the optional test method 

for determining if a BVM model meets 

the definition of ‘‘fully cooled.’’ 

(14) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt a lowest application 

product temperature provision for 

covered beverage vending machines that 

cannot be tested at the specified average 

next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F 

(± 1 °F). 

(15) DOE also requests comment on 

how the lowest application product 

temperature might be best determined 

for beverage vending machines and 

whether the lowest thermostat setting is 

a reasonable approach for most 

equipment. DOE requests comment on 

how to determine the lowest application 

product temperature for equipment 

without thermostats. 

(16) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow covered equipment 

that cannot maintain the 36 °F (± 1 °F) 

average next-to-vend temperature to be 

tested at the lowest application product 

temperature without requesting a DOE 

waiver. 

(17) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to clarify in Appendix A and 

B that internal lighting shall be operated 

in the maximum energy consuming state 

under the DOE test procedure. 

(18) DOE requests comment on 

whether the maximum energy 

consuming state for internal lighting is 

consistent with ‘‘normal’’ operation. 

(19) DOE requests comment on the 

range of equipment that should be 

addressed in this category of accessories 

and if the proposed terminology of 

customer display signs, lighting, and 

digital screens is sufficient to capture 

the variety of similar auxiliary energyconsuming accessories that might be 

installed on BVM models. 

(20) DOE requests comment on the 

treatment of external and integral 

customer display signs, lighting, and 

digital screens in Appendix A. 

(21) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed treatment of external and 

integral customer display signs, lighting, 

and digital screens in Appendix B. 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

whether disabling external devices and 

placing integral devices in standby 

mode or their lowest energy-consuming 

state is sufficiently representative of the 

energy use of refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines. 

(22) DOE requests comment on the 

proposed definition of standby mode as 

the mode of operation in which the 

external, integral customer display 

signs, lighting, or digital screens is 

connected to mains power, does not 

produce the intended illumination, 

display, or interaction functionality, and 

can be switched into another mode 

automatically with only a remote usergenerated or an internal signal. 

(23) For digital screens that also 

perform the vending or moneyprocessing function, DOE requests 

comment on the proposal to place these 

screens in their lowest energyconsuming state that still allows the 

money-processing feature to function. 

(24) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to clarify the treatment of 

accessories in the DOE test procedure. 

(25) DOE also requests comment on 

any other accessories that may require 

special treatment or exemption. 

(26) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed definitions of ‘‘low power 

mode,’’ ‘‘refrigeration low power 

mode,’’ and ‘‘accessory low power 

mode.’’ 

(27) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that units run at the most 

energy-consuming lighting and control 

settings, except as specified in section 

III.A.11, during the BVM test procedure, 

except for during the 6-hour low power 

mode test period. 

(28) DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require, as part of the test 

procedure, whatever stimuli are 

necessary to prevent automatic 

activation of low power modes during 

the vending state test procedure. 

(29) DOE requests comment on its 

proposed method for accounting for 

equipment that can use low power 

modes. DOE requests comment as to 

whether this proposed method reflects 

typical field use. 

(30) DOE requests comment on 

whether 6 hours is an appropriate 

length of time for the low power mode 

test period. 

(31) DOE requests information on the 

prevalence of non-cycling (variablespeed) compressors in the BVM 

industry. 

(32) DOE requests comment on 

whether a credit equal to 3 percent of 

the measured DEC is reflective of the 6 

hours of time in refrigeration low power 

mode. 

(33) DOE requests comment on the 

refrigeration low power mode validation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46934 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

test and, particularly, if a one hour time 

period in which the instantaneous 

average of all standard test packages in 

the next-to-vend beverage position is 

maintained above 40 °F is appropriate to 

verify the performance of refrigeration 

low power modes. 

(34) DOE requests comment on 

whether a physical test method would 

be a more representative and accurate 

method to account for low power mode 

operation, including refrigeration lowpower mode. 

(35) DOE requests comment on its 

certification that the proposed test 

procedure changes will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 1, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of chapter II of title 

10, of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.52 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.52 Refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following additional product-specific 

information: When using Appendix A of 

this part, the daily energy consumption 

in kilowatt hours per day (kWh/day), 

the refrigerated volume (V) in cubic feet 

(ft3), and the lowest application product 

temperature, if applicable. When using 

Appendix B, the daily energy 

consumption in kilowatt hours per day 

(kWh/day), the refrigerated volume (V) 

in cubic feet (ft3), whether testing was 

conducted using an accessory low 

power mode, whether testing was 

conducted using a refrigeration low 

power mode, and, if applicable, the 

lowest application product temperature. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 4. Section 431.291 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.291 Scope. 

This subpart specifies test procedures 

and energy conservation standards for 

certain commercial refrigerated bottled 

or canned beverage vending machines, 

pursuant to part A of Title III of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309. The 

regulatory provisions of §§ 430.33 and 

430.34 and subparts D and E of 10 CFR 

part 430 of this chapter are applicable 

to refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines. 

■ 5. Section 431.292 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions for ‘‘Fully cooled,’’ 

‘‘Integrated average temperature,’’ and 

‘‘Lowest application product 

temperature,’’ to read as follows: 

§ 431.292 Definitions concerning 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines. 

* * * * * 

Fully cooled means a condition in 

which the refrigeration system of a 

beverage vending machine cools 

product throughout the entire 

refrigerated volume of a machine 

instead of being directed at a fraction (or 

zone) of the refrigerated volume as 

measured by the average temperature of 

the standard test packages in the 

furthest from the next-to-vend positions 

being no more than 10 °F above the 

integrated average temperature of the 

standard test packages. 

Integrated average temperature means 

the average temperature of all standard 

test package measurements in the nextto-vend beverage positions taken during 

the test, expressed in degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F). 

Lowest application product 

temperature means the lowest 

integrated average temperature a given 

basic model is capable of maintaining so 

as to comply with the temperature 

stabilization requirements specified in 

section 7.2.2.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.293). 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 431.293 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) and removing 

and reserving paragraph (b)(2). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 431.293 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1– 

2010, (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1’’), 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Vending 

Machines for Sealed Beverages,’’ 

approved June 26, 2010, IBR approved 

for appendices A and B to subpart Q. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 431.294 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 431.294 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines. 

* * * * * 

(b) Testing and calculations. 

Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each covered 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine by conducting the 

appropriate test procedure set forth in 

appendix A or B to this subpart. 

§ 431.296 [Amended] 

■ 8. Section 431.296 is amended by 

removing the word ‘‘maximum’’ after 

‘‘shall have a’’ in the introductory text 

■ 9. Subpart Q of part 431 is amended 

by adding appendices A and B to read 

as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Refrigerated Bottled or Canned 

Beverage Vending Machines 

Note: After [date 30 days after publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] and 

prior to [date 180 days after publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register], 

manufacturers must make any 

representations with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines in 

accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to this Appendix A or the 

procedures in 10 CFR 431.294 as it appeared 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46935 

in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition 

revised as of January 1, 2014. After [date 180 

days after date of publication of the final 

rule], manufacturers must make any 

representations with respect to energy use or 

efficiency in accordance with the results of 

testing pursuant to this appendix to 

demonstrate compliance with the energy 

conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.296, 

for which compliance was required as of 

August 31, 2012. 

1. General. Section 3, ‘‘Definitons,’’ 

and section 4, ‘‘Instruments,’’ of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 431.293) apply to this 

appendix. In cases where there is a 

conflict, the language of the test 

procedure in this appendix takes 

precedence over ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1. 

2. Test Procedure. 

2.1. Test Conditions. 

2.1.1. Equipment Loading. Configure 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines to hold the maximum 

number of standard products and place 

a standard test package in each next-tovend position. 

2.1.1.1. Standard Products. The 

standard product shall be standard 

12-ounce aluminum beverage cans filled 

with a liquid with a density of 1.0 grams 

per milliliter (g/mL) ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F. 

For product storage racks that are not 

capable of holding 12-ounce cans, but 

are capable of holding 20-ounce bottles, 

the standard product shall be 20-ounce 

plastic bottles filled with a liquid with 

a density of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL at 

36 °F. For product storage racks that are 

not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 

20-ounce bottles, the standard product 

shall be the packaging and contents 

specified by the manufacturer as the 

standard product (i.e., the specific 

merchandise the refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine is 

designed to vend). 

2.1.1.2. Standard Test Packages. A 

standard test package is a standard 

product, as specified in 2.1.1.1, altered 

to include a temperature-measuring 

instrument at its center of mass. 

2.1.2. Average Beverage Temperature. 

The integrated average temperature 

measured during the test must be within 

± 1 °F of the average beverage 

temperature specified in section 6.1 of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293) (i.e., 36 °F) or 

the lowest application product 

temperature for models tested in 

accordance with paragraph 2.1.4 of this 

appendix. 

2.1.3. Ambient Test Conditions. Test 

the refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machine at the test 

condition of 75 °F ± 2 °F 

(23.9 °C ± 1 °C) ambient temperature 

and 45 percent ± 5 percent relative 

humidity. 

2.1.4. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature. If a refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine is not 

capable of maintaining an integrated 

average temperature of 36 °F (± 1 °F), 

the unit must be tested at the lowest 

application product temperature, as 

defined in § 431.292. For refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines equipped with a thermostat, 

the lowest application product 

temperature is the integrated average 

temperature achieved at the lowest 

thermostat setting. 

2.2. Determination of Daily Energy 

Consumption. Except as provided in 

this appendix, the test procedure for 

energy consumption of refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines shall be conducted in 

accordance with the methods specified 

in section 6, ‘‘Test Conditions;’’ and 

sections 7.1 through 7.2.3.2 under ‘‘Test 

Procedures’’ of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.293). 

2.2.1. Temperature Measurement. The 

integrated average temperature of nextto-vend beverages shall be measured in 

a standard test packages in each next-tovend position for each selection, as 

specified in section 7.2.2.1 of ANSI/

ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293). Do not run 

thermocouple wire and other 

measurement apparatus through the 

dispensing door; thermocouple wire and 

other measurement apparatus may be 

run through the gasket, provided that 

the gasket is fully compressed around 

the intruding wire and sealed to 

minimize air flow between the interior 

refrigerated volume and the ambient 

room air. 

2.2.2. Accessories. All standard 

components that would be used during 

normal operation of the model in the 

field shall be in place during testing and 

shall be set to the maximum energyconsuming setting if manually 

adjustable, except that the specific 

components and accessories listed in 

the subsequent sections shall be 

operated as stated. Instead of testing 

pursuant to section 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/

ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293), provide, if 

necessary, any physical stimuli or other 

input to the machine needed to prevent 

automatic activation of energy 

management systems that can be 

adjusted by the machine operator during 

the test period. Automatic energy 

management systems that cannot be 

adjusted by the machine operator may 

be enabled, as specified by section 7.2.1 

of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1. 

2.2.2.1 Money-Processing Devices. 

Money-processing devices must be in 

place and functional during testing. 

2.2.2.2. Internal Lighting. All lighting 

that is contained within or is part of the 

internal physical boundary of the 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine, as established by the 

top, bottom, and side panels of the 

equipment, shall be placed in its 

maximum energy consuming state. 

2.2.2.3. External Customer Display 

Signs, Lighting, and Digital Screens. All 

external customer display signs, 

lighting, and digital screens that are 

independent from the refrigeration or 

vending performance of the refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machine must be disconnected, 

disabled, or otherwise de-energized for 

the duration of testing. Customer 

display signs, lighting, and digital 

screens that are integrated into the BVM 

cabinet or controls such that they 

cannot be de-energized without 

disabling the refrigeration or vending 

functions of the refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine or 

modifying the circuitry must be placed 

in their lowest energy-consuming state. 

This includes television displays and 

other supplemental lighting that exists 

for advertising or display purposes. 

Digital displays that also serve a 

vending or money-processing function 

must be placed in the lowest energyconsuming state that still allows the 

money-processing feature to function. 

2.2.2.4. Anti-sweat and Other Electric 

Resistance Heaters. Anti-sweat and 

other electric resistance heaters must be 

operational during the entirety of the 

test procedure. Models with a userselectable setting must have the heaters 

energized and set to the maximum usage 

position. Models featuring an automatic, 

non-user-adjustable controller that turns 

on or off based on environmental 

conditions must be operating in the 

automatic state. 

2.2.2.5. Condensate Pan Heaters and 

Pumps. All electric resistance 

condensate heaters and condensate 

pumps must be installed and 

operational during the test. Prior to the 

start of the stabilization period, as 

defined by ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.293), the condensate pan must be 

dry. Following the start of the 

stabilization period, allow any 

condensate moisture generated to 

accumulate in the pan. Do not manually 

add or remove water from the 

condensate pan at any time during the 

test. 

2.2.2.6. Illuminated Temperature 

Displays. All illuminated temperature 

displays shall be energized and operated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46936 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

during the test as they would be during 

normal field operation. 

2.2.2.7. Condenser Filters. Remove 

any nonpermanent filters provided to 

prevent particulates from blocking a 

model’s condenser coil. 

2.2.2.8. Security Covers. Remove any 

devices used to secure the model from 

theft or tampering. 

2.2.2.9. General Purpose Outlets. 

During the test, do not connect any 

external load to any general purpose 

outlets available on a unit. 

2.2.2.10. Crankcase Heaters and Other 

Electric Resistance Heaters for Cold 

Weather. Crankcase heaters and other 

electric resistance heaters for cold 

weather must be operational during the 

test. If a control system, such as a 

thermostat or electronic controller, is 

used to modulate the operation of the 

heater, it must be activated during the 

test. 

3. Determination of Refrigerated 

Volume and Vendible Capacity. 

3.1. Determine ‘‘refrigerated volume’’ 

of refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines in 

accordance with Appendix C, 

‘‘Measurement of Volume,’’ of ANSI/

ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293). For 

combination vending machines, the 

‘‘refrigerated volume’’ is only that 

portion of the refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine that 

is actively refrigerated. 

3.2. Determine ‘‘vendible capacity’’ of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines in accordance with 

the first paragraph of section 5, 

‘‘Vending Machine Capacity,’’ of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 32.1, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293). For 

combination vending machines, the 

‘‘vendible capacity’’ is the entire volume 

from which product may be vended, 

whether or not that volume is 

refrigerated. 

4. Verification of Fully Cooled 

Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage 

Vending Machines. 

To determine if a refrigerated bottled 

or canned beverage vending machine 

model is fully cooled, install standard 

test packages in the furthest from the 

next-to-vend positions. For a beverage 

vending machine with horizontal 

product rows, or spirals, this would 

require a standard test package at the 

back of the horizontal product rows in 

the four corners of the machine (e.g., 

bottom right, bottom left, top right, and 

top left). For a beverage vending 

machine with standard products 

configured in a vertical stack, this 

would require a standard test package at 

the top of each stack. Calculate the 

average temperature of all the standard 

test packages in the furthest from the 

next-to-vend position over the entire 

test period. Subtract this value from the 

integrated average temperature of 

standard test packages in the next-tovend beverage positions. If the 

difference between these two values is 

less than or equal to 10 °F, the tested 

unit is fully cooled. 

Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement of Energy Consumption of 

Refrigerated Bottled or Canned 

Beverage Vending Machines 

Note: After [date 30 days after publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] and 

prior to [date 180 days after publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register], 

manufacturers must make any 

representations with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines in 

accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to Appendix A or the procedures in 

10 CFR 431.294 as it appeared in the 10 CFR 

parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 

1, 2014. After [date 180 days after date of 

publication of the final rule], manufacturers 

must make any representations with respect 

to energy use or efficiency in accordance 

with the results of testing pursuant to 

Appendix A of this Subpart to demonstrate 

compliance with the energy conservation 

standards at 10 CFR 431.296, for which 

compliance was required as of August 31, 

2012. 

Alternatively, manufacturers may 

make representations based on testing in 

accordance with this appendix prior to 

the compliance date of any amended 

energy conservation standards, provided 

that such representations demonstrate 

compliance with such amended energy 

conservation standards. Any 

representations made on or after the 

compliance date of any amended energy 

conservation standards, must be made 

in accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to Appendix B. 

1. General. 

1.1 In cases where there is a conflict, 

the language of the test procedure in 

this appendix takes precedence over 

ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293). 

1.2. Definitions. Section 3, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ and section 4, 

‘‘Instruments,’’ of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.293) apply to this appendix. 

Accessory low power mode means a 

state in which a beverage vending 

machine’s lighting and/or other energyusing systems, except the refrigeration 

system, are in low power mode. This 

may include, but is not limited to, 

dimming or turning off lights but does 

not include adjustment of the 

refrigeration system. 

Low power mode means a state in 

which a beverage vending machine’s 

lighting, refrigeration, and/or other 

energy-using systems are automatically 

adjusted (without user intervention) 

such that they consume less energy than 

they consume in an active vending 

environment. 

Refrigeration low power mode means 

a state in which a beverage vending 

machine’s refrigeration system is in low 

power mode. To qualify as low power 

mode, the average next-to-vend 

temperature must automatically 

(without user intervention) rise to at 

least 4 °F above the integrated average 

temperature or lowest application 

product temperature, as applicable, and 

remain above this threshold for at least 

one hour. 

Standby mode means the mode of 

operation in which any external, 

integral customer display signs, lighting, 

or digital screens are connected to 

mains power; do not produce the 

intended illumination, display, or 

interaction functionality; and can be 

switched into another mode 

automatically with only a remote usergenerated or an internal signal. 

2. Test Procedure. 

2.1. Test Conditions. 

2.1.1. Equipment Loading. Configure 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines to hold the maximum 

number of standard products, and place 

a standard test package in each next-tovend position. For combination vending 

machines, only load the refrigerated 

volume with standard test packages. 

2.1.1.1. Standard Products. The 

standard product shall be standard 

12-ounce aluminum beverage cans filled 

with a liquid with a density of 1.0 grams 

per milliliter (g/mL) ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F. 

For product storage racks that are not 

capable of holding 12-ounce cans, but 

are capable of holding 20-ounce bottles, 

the standard product shall be 20-ounce 

plastic bottles filled with a liquid with 

a density of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL at 

36 °F. For product storage racks that are 

not capable of holding 12-ounce cans or 

20-ounce bottles, the standard product 

shall be the packaging and contents 

specified by the manufacturer as the 

standard product (i.e., the specific 

merchandise the refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine is 

designed to vend). 

2.1.1.2. Standard Test Packages. A 

standard test package is a standard 

product, as specified in 2.1.1.1, altered 

to include a temperature-measuring 

instrument at its center of mass. 

2.1.2. Average Beverage Temperature. 

The integrated average temperature 

measured during the vending state test 

period must be within ± 1 °F of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 46937 

average beverage temperature specified 

in section 6.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.293) (i.e., 36 °F) or the lowest 

application product temperature for 

models tested in accordance with 

paragraph 2.1.4 of this appendix). 

2.1.3. Ambient Test Conditions. Test 

the refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machine at the test 

condition of 75 °F ± 2 °F (23.9 °C ± 1 

°C) ambient temperature and 45 percent 

± 5 percent relative humidity. 

2.1.4. Lowest Application Product 

Temperature. If a refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine is not 

capable of maintaining an integrated 

average temperature of 36 °F (± 1 °F), 

the unit must be tested at the lowest 

application product temperature, as 

defined in § 431.292. For refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines equipped with a thermostat, 

the lowest application product 

temperature is the integrated average 

temperature achieved at the lowest 

thermostat setting. 

2.2. Determination of Daily Energy 

Consumption. Except as provided in 

this appendix, the test procedure for 

energy consumption of refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines shall be conducted in 

accordance with the test procedures 

specified in section 6, ‘‘Test 

Conditions;’’ and sections 7.1 through 

7.2.3.2 under ‘‘Test Procedures,’’ of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, ‘‘Methods of 

Testing for Rating Vending Machines 

Sealed Beverages’’ (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293). In section 

7.2.3.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, the 

energy consumed during the test (E T) 

shall be the energy measured during the 

vending mode test period and accessory 

low power mode test period, as 

specified in section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, as 

applicable. 

2.2.1. Temperature Measurement. The 

integrated average temperature of nextto-vend beverages shall be measured in 

a standard test packages in each next-tovend position for each selection, as 

specified in section 7.2.2.1 of ANSI/

ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293). Do not run 

thermocouple wire and other 

measurement apparatus through the 

dispensing door; thermocouple wire and 

other measurement apparatus may be 

run through the gasket such that the 

gasket is fully compressed around the 

intruding wire and sealed to minimize 

air flow between the interior refrigerated 

volume and the ambient room air. 

2.2.2. Vending Mode Test Period. The 

vending mode test period begins 

immediately following the stabilization 

period and continues for 18 hours for 

equipment with an accessory low power 

mode or for 24 hours for equipment 

without an accessory low power mode. 

For the vending mode test period, 

equipment that has energy-saving 

features that cannot be disabled shall be 

set to the most energy-consuming 

settings, except for as specified in 

paragraph 2.2.4. In addition, all energy 

management systems shall be disabled. 

Instead of testing pursuant to sections 

7.1.1(d) and 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE 

32.1 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.293), provide, if necessary, any 

physical stimuli or other input to the 

machine needed to prevent automatic 

activation of low power modes during 

the vending mode test period. 

2.2.3. Accessory Low Power Mode Test 

Period. For equipment with an 

accessory low power mode the 

accessory low power mode may be 

engaged for 6 hours, beginning 18 hours 

after the temperature stabilization 

requirements established in ANSI/

ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293) have been met, 

and continuing until the end of the 24- 

hour test period. During the accessory 

low power mode test, operate the 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine with the lowest 

energy-consuming lighting and control 

settings that constitute an accessory low 

power mode. The specification and 

tolerances for average beverage 

temperature in section 6.1 of ANSI/

ASHRAE 32.1 still apply, and any 

refrigeration low power mode must not 

be engaged. Instead of testing pursuant 

to sections 7.1.1(d) and 7.2.2.4 of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 32.1, provide, if necessary, 

any physical stimuli or other input to 

the machine needed to prevent 

automatic activation of refrigeration low 

power modes during the vending mode 

test period. 

2.2.3.1. Refrigeration Low Power 

Mode. For refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines with a 

refrigeration low power mode multiply 

the primary rated energy consumption 

per day (E T) by 0.97 to determine the 

daily energy consumption of the unit 

tested. 

2.2.4. Accessories. Unless specified 

otherwise in this appendix, all standard 

components that would be used during 

normal operation of the basic model in 

the field shall be in place during testing 

and shall be set to the maximum energyconsuming setting if manually 

adjustable. Components with controls 

that are permanently operational and 

cannot be adjusted by the machine 

operator shall be operated in their 

normal setting and consistent with the 

requirements of 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of this 

appendix. The specific components and 

accessories listed in the subsequent 

sections shall be operated as stated 

during the test, except when controlled 

as part of a low power mode during the 

low power mode test period. 

2.2.4.1 Money-Processing Devices. 

Money-processing devices must be in 

place and functional during testing. 

2.2.4.2. Internal Lighting. All lighting 

that is contained within or is part of the 

internal physical boundary of the 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine, as established by the 

top, bottom, and side panels of the 

equipment, shall be placed in its 

maximum energy consuming state. 

2.2.4.3. External Customer Display 

Signs, Lights, and Digital Screens. All 

external customer display signs, 

lighting, and digital screens that are 

independent from the refrigeration or 

vending performance of the refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machine must be disconnected, 

disabled, or otherwise de-energized for 

the duration of testing. Customer 

display signs, lighting, and digital 

screens that are integrated into the 

beverage vending machine cabinet or 

controls such that they cannot be deenergized without disabling the 

refrigeration or vending functions of the 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine or modifying the 

circuitry must be placed in standby 

mode, if available, or their lowest 

energy-consuming state. This includes 

television displays and other 

supplemental lighting that exists for 

advertising or display purposes. Digital 

displays that also serve a vending or 

money-processing function must be 

placed in the lowest energy-consuming 

state that still allows the moneyprocessing feature to function. 

2.2.4.4. Anti-sweat or Other Electric 

Resistance Heaters. Anti-sweat or other 

electric resistance heaters must be 

operational during the entirety of the 

test procedure. Models with a userselectable setting must have the heaters 

energized and set to the maximum usage 

position. Models featuring an automatic, 

non-user-adjustable controller that turns 

on or off based on environmental 

conditions must be operating in the 

automatic state. 

2.2.4.5. Condensate Pan Heaters and 

Pumps. All electric resistance 

condensate heaters and condensate 

pumps must be installed and 

operational during the test. Prior to the 

start of the stabilization period, as 

defined by ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.293), the condensate pan must be 

dry. Following the start of the 

stabilization period, allow any 

condensate moisture generated to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46938 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

accumulate in the pan. Do not manually 

add or remove water from the 

condensate pan at any time during the 

test. Any automatic controls that initiate 

the operation of the condensate pan 

heater or pump based on water level or 

ambient conditions must be enabled and 

operated in the automatic setting. 

2.2.4.6. Illuminated Temperature 

Displays. All illuminated temperature 

displays shall be energized and operated 

during the test as they would be during 

normal field operation. 

2.2.4.7. Condenser Filters. Remove 

any nonpermanent filters provided to 

prevent particulates from blocking a 

model’s condenser coil. 

2.2.4.8. Security Covers. Remove any 

devices used to secure the model from 

theft or tampering. 

2.2.4.9. General Purpose Outlets. 

During the test, do not connect any 

external load to any general purpose 

outlets available on a unit. 

2.2.4.10. Crankcase Heaters and Other 

Electric Resistance Heaters for Cold 

Weather. Crankcase heaters and other 

electric resistance heaters for cold 

weather must be operational during the 

test. If a control system, such as a 

thermostat or electronic controller, is 

used to modulate the operation of the 

heater, it must be activated during the 

test. 

3. Determination of Refrigeration 

Volume and Vendible Capacity. 

3.1. Determine ‘‘refrigerated volume’’ 

of refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines in 

accordance with Appendix C, 

‘‘Measurement of Volume,’’ of ANSI/

ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293). For 

combination vending machines, the 

‘‘refrigerated volume’’ is only that 

portion of the refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machine that 

is actively refrigerated. 

3.2. Determine ‘‘vendible capacity’’ of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines in accordance with 

the first paragraph of section 5, 

‘‘Vending Machine Capacity,’’ of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 32.1 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.293). For 

combination vending machines, the 

‘‘vendible capacity’’ is the entire volume 

from which product may be vended, 

whether or not that volume is actively 

refrigerated. 

4. Verification Tests. 

These test methods are not required 

for the certification of refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines. 

4.1 Verification of Fully Cooled 

Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage 

Vending Machines. To determine if a 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine model is fully cooled, 

install standard test packages in the 

furthest from the next-to-vend positions. 

For a beverage vending machine with 

horizontal product rows, or spirals, this 

would require a standard test package at 

the back of the horizontal product rows 

in the four corners of the machine (e.g., 

bottom right, bottom left, top right, and 

top left). For a beverage vending 

machines with standard products 

configured in a vertical stack, this 

would require a standard test package at 

the top of each stack. Calculate the 

average temperature of all the standard 

test packages in the furthest from the 

next-to-vend position over the entire 

test period and subtract this value from 

the integrated average temperature of 

standard test packages in the next-tovend beverage positions. If the 

difference between these two values is 

less than or equal to 10 °F, the tested 

unit is fully cooled. 

4.2 Refrigeration Low Power Mode 

Validation Test Method. To verify the 

existence of a refrigeration low power 

mode initiate the refrigeration low 

power mode after completion of the 

6-hour low power mode test period and 

record the average temperature of the 

standard test packages in the next-tovend beverage positions for the next 

2 hours. Over the course of this 2-hour 

period, the instantaneous average nextto-vend beverage temperatures, that is 

the spatial average of all next-to-vend 

beverages, must increase above 40 °F 

and remain above 40 °F for at least 1 

hour. At the conclusion of the 2-hour 

refrigeration low power mode 

verification test period, the refrigerated 

beverage vending machine must return 

to 36 ± 1 °F automatically without direct 

physical intervention. Record the 

average temperature of the standard test 

packages in the next-to-vend beverage 

positions until the average temperature 

returns to at least 37 °F.3 

[FR Doc. 2014–18801 Filed 8–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2