4646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0037] 

RIN 1904–AC39 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including automatic commercial 

icemakers (ACIM). EPCA also requires 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine whether more-stringent 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would save a significant amount of 

energy. In this final rule, DOE is 

adopting more-stringent energy 

conservation standards for some classes 

of automatic commercial ice makers as 

well as establishing energy conservation 

standards for other classes of automatic 

commercial ice makers. It has 

determined that the amended energy 

conservation standards for these 

products would result in significant 

conservation of energy, and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

March 30, 2015. Compliance with the 

amended standards established for 

automatic commercial ice makers in this 

final rule is required on January 28, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.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://www.regulations.gov/#

!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD0037. 

The regulations.gov Web page will 

contain simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1692. Email: 

commercial_ice_makers@EE.Doe.Gov. 

Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mailstop GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–1777. 

Email: Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Discussion of the Final Rule and Its 

Benefits 

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

III. General Discussion 

A. Equipment Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Commercial Customers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price (Life Cycle Costs) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments 

A. General Rulemaking Issues 

1. Proposed Standard Levels 

2. Compliance Date 

3. Negotiated Rulemaking 

4. Refrigerant Regulation 

5. Data Availability 

6. Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

7. Rulemaking Structure Comments 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Equipment Classes 

a. Cabinet Size 

b. Large-Capacity Batch Ice Makers 

c. Regulation of Potable Water Use 

d. Regulation of Condenser Water Use 

e. Continuous Models 

f. Gourmet Ice Machines 

2. Technology Assessment 

a. Alternative Refrigerants 

C. Screening Analysis 

a. General Comments 

b. Drain Water Heat Exchanger 

c. Tube Evaporator Design 

d. Low Thermal Mass Evaporator Design 

e. Microchannel Heat Exchangers 

f. Smart Technologies 

g. Motors 

D. Engineering Analysis 

1. Representative Equipment for Analysis 

2. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

b. Incremental Efficiency Levels 

c. IMH–A-Large–B Treatment 

d. Maximum Available Efficiency 

Equipment 

e. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Efficiency Levels 

3. Design Options 

a. Design Options that Need Cabinet 

Growth 

b. Improved Condenser Performance 

c. Compressors 

d. Evaporator 

e. Interconnectedness of Automatic 

Commercial Ice Maker System 

4. Cost Assessment Methodology 

a. Manufacturing Cost 

b. Energy Consumption Model 

c. Revision of NOPR and NODA 

Engineering Analysis 

E. Markups Analysis 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Equipment Cost 

2. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 

Costs 

a. Installation Costs 

b. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Energy Price Projections 

6. Water Prices 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Lifetime 

9. Compliance Date of Standards 

10. Base-Case and Standards-Case 

Efficiency Distributions 

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

12. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

Period 

H. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

1. Shipments 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

3. National Energy Savings 

4. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit 

I. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Key Inputs 

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios 

3. Discussion of Comments 

a. Conversion Costs 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4647 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

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

3EPCA as amended by EPACT 2005 established 

maximum energy use and maximum condenser 

water use standards for cube type automatic 

commercial ice makers with harvest capacities 

between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. In this 

rulemaking, DOE is amending the legislated energy 

use standards for these automatic commercial ice 

maker types. DOE is not, however, amending the 

existing condenser water use standards for 

equipment with existing condenser water 

standards. 

c. SNAP and Compliance Date 

Considerations 

d. ENERGY STAR 

e. Request for DOE and EPA Collaboration 

f. Compliance With Refrigerant Changes 

Could Be Difficult 

g. Small Manufacturers 

h. Large Manufacturers 

i. Negative Impact on Market Growth 

j. Negative Impact on Non-U.S. Sales 

k. Employment 

l. Compliance With 12866 and 13563 

m. Warranty Claims 

n. Impact to Suppliers, Distributors, 

Dealers, and Contractors 

K. Emissions Analysis 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

1. Trial Standard Level Formulation 

Process and Criteria 

2. Trial Standard Level Equations 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Commercial 

Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Direct Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Amount and Significance of Energy 

Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and 

Benefits 

c. Water Savings 

d. Indirect Employment Impacts 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

C. Conclusions/Proposed Standard 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Discussion of the Final Rule and Its 

Benefits 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

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

6311–6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, a program 

covering certain industrial equipment,2

which includes the focus of this final 

rule: Automatic commercial ice makers 

(ACIM). 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

that DOE prescribes for certain 

products, such as automatic commercial 

ice makers, shall be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE determines is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

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

In accordance with these and other 

statutory criteria discussed in this final 

rule, DOE is amending energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers,3 and new 

standards for covered equipment not yet 

subject to energy conservation 

standards. The amended standards, 

which consist of maximum allowable 

energy use per 100 lb of ice production, 

are shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2. 

Standards shown on Table I.1 for batch 

type ice makers represent the 

amendments to existing standards set 

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

6313(d)(1), and new standards for cube 

type ice makers with expanded harvest 

capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 

24 hour period (lb ice/24 hours) and an 

explicit coverage of other types of batch 

machines, such as tube type ice makers. 

Table I.2 provides new standards for 

continuous type ice-making machines, 

which were not previously currently 

covered by DOE’s existing standards. 

The amended standards include, for 

applicable equipment classes, maximum 

condenser water usage values in gallons 

per 100 lb of ice production. These new 

and amended standards apply to all 

equipment manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States, on or 

after January 28, 2018. (42 U.S.C. 

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

TABLE I.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATCH TYPE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICEMAKERS

[Compliance required starting January 28, 2018] 

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kilowatt-hours (kWh)/

100 lb ice * 

Maximum condenser 

water use 

gal/100 lb ice ** 

Ice-Making Head ....................................................... Water ................ <300 6.88—0.0055H 200—0.022H. 

≥300 and <850 5.80—0.00191H 200—0.022H. 

≥850 and <1,500 4.42—0.00028H 200—0.022H. 

≥1,500 and <2,500 4.0 200—0.022H. 

≥2,500 and <4,000 4.0 145. 

Ice-Making Head ....................................................... Air ..................... <300 10—0.01233H NA. 

≥300 and <800 7.05—0.0025H NA. 

≥800 and <1,500 5.55—0.00063H NA. 

≥1500 and <4,000 4.61 NA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4Life-cycle cost of automatic commercial ice 

makers is the cost to customers of owning and 

operating the equipment over the entire life of the 

equipment. Life-cycle cost savings are the 

reductions in the life-cycle costs due to amended 

energy conservation standards when compared to 

the life-cycle costs of the equipment in the absence 

of amended energy conservation standards. 

5Payback period refers to the amount of time (in 

years) it takes customers to recover the increased 

installed cost of equipment associated with new or 

amended standards through savings in operating 

costs. Further discussion can be found in chapter 

8 of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE I.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATCH TYPE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICEMAKERS—Continued 

[Compliance required starting January 28, 2018] 

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kilowatt-hours (kWh)/

100 lb ice * 

Maximum condenser 

water use 

gal/100 lb ice ** 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .. Air ..................... ≥50 and <1,000 7.97—0.00342H NA. 

≥1,000 and <4,000 4.55 NA. 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ....... Air ..................... <942 7.97—0.00342H NA. 

≥942 and <4,000 4.75 NA. 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Water ................ <200 9.5—0.019H 191—0.0315H. 

≥200 and <2,500 5.7 191—0.0315H. 

≥2,500 and <4,000 5.7 112. 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Air ..................... <110 14.79—0.0469H NA. 

≥110 and <200 12.42—0.02533H NA. 

≥200 and <4,000 7.35 NA. 

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

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

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

[Compliance required starting January 28, 2018] 

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice * 

Maximum condenser 

water use 

gal/100 lb ice ** 

Ice-Making Head ....................................................... Water ................ <801 6.48—0.00267H 180—0.0198H. 

≥801 and <2,500 4.34 180—0.0198H. 

≥2,500 and <4,000 4.34 130.5. 

Ice-Making Head ....................................................... Air ..................... <310 9.19—0.00629H NA. 

≥310 and <820 8.23—0.0032H NA. 

≥820 and <4,000 5.61 NA. 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .. Air ..................... <800 9.7—0.0058H NA. 

≥800 and <4,000 5.06 NA. 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ....... Air ..................... <800 9.9—0.0058H NA. 

≥800 and <4,000 5.26 NA. 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Water ................ <900 7.6—0.00302H 153—0.0252H. 

≥900 and <2,500 4.88 153—0.0252H. 

≥2,500 and <4,000 4.88 90. 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Air ..................... <200 14.22—0.03H NA. 

≥200 and <700 9.47—0.00624H NA. 

≥700 and <4,000 5.1 NA. 

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

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

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers 

Table I.3 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of the standards 

set by this final rule on customers of 

automatic commercial ice makers, as 

measured by the average life-cycle cost 

(LCC) savings 4 and the median payback 

period (PBP).5 The average LCC savings 

are positive for all equipment classes for 

which customers are impacted by the 

new and amended standards. 

TABLE I.3—IMPACTS OF TODAY’S STANDARDS ON CUSTOMERS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment class * 

Average LCC 

savings 

2013$ 

Median PBP 

years 

IMH–W–Small–B .............................................................................................................................................. 214 2.7 

IMH–W–Med–B ................................................................................................................................................ 308 2.1 

IMH–W–Large–B ** .......................................................................................................................................... NA NA 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 .................................................................................................................................. NA NA 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 .................................................................................................................................. NA NA 

IMH–A–Small–B ............................................................................................................................................... 77 4.7 

IMH–A–Large–B ** ........................................................................................................................................... 361 2.3 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 ................................................................................................................................... 407 1.5 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 ................................................................................................................................... 110 6.9 

RCU–Large–B ** .............................................................................................................................................. 748 1.1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4649 

6All dollar values presented are in 2013$ 

discounted back to the year 2014. 

7The standards analysis period for national 

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

equipment purchased during the period. In the past, 

DOE presented energy savings results for only the 

30-year period that begins in the year of 

compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, 

however, DOE considered operating cost savings 

measured over the entire lifetime of products 

purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen 

to modify its presentation of national energy 

savings to be consistent with the approach used for 

its national economic analysis. 

8These discount rates are used in accordance 

with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

guidance to Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A–4, September 

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

Measuring Benefits and Costs,’’ therein. Further 

details are provided in section IV.J. 

9A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 U.S. short tons. 

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

tons. 

10 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO2014) 

Reference Case, which generally represents current 

legislation and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

October 31, 2013. 

11 DOE also estimated CO2 and CO2 equivalent 

(CO2eq) emissions that occur through 2030 (CO2eq 

includes greenhouse gases such as CH4 and N2O). 

The estimated emissions reductions through 2030 

are 3.9 million metric tons CO2, 395 thousand tons 

CO2eq for CH4, and 12 thousand tons CO2eq for 

N2O. 

12http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-ofcarbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

13 DOE has decided to await further guidance 

regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg 

emissions before it monetizes Hg in its rulemakings. 

TABLE I.3—IMPACTS OF TODAY’S STANDARDS ON CUSTOMERS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS—Continued 

Equipment class * 

Average LCC 

savings 

2013$ 

Median PBP 

years 

RCU–Large–B–1 ...................................................................................................................................... 743 0.9 

RCU–Large–B–2 ...................................................................................................................................... 820 3.0 

SCU–W–Large–B ............................................................................................................................................ 550 1.8 

SCU–A–Small–B .............................................................................................................................................. 281 2.6 

SCU–A–Large–B ............................................................................................................................................. 439 2.1 

IMH–A–Small–C .............................................................................................................................................. 313 1.7 

IMH–A–Large–C .............................................................................................................................................. 626 0.7 

RCU–Small–C .................................................................................................................................................. 505 1.2 

SCU–A–Small–C ............................................................................................................................................. 290 1.5 

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

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

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

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

classes analyzed. 

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers 6

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from 2015 through the 

end of the analysis period in 2047. 

Using a real discount rate of 9.2 percent, 

DOE estimates that the INPV for 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers is $121.6 million in 2013$. 

Under the amended standards, DOE 

expects that manufacturers may lose up 

to 12.5 percent of their INPV, or 

approximately $15.1 million. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

amended standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers would save a 

significant amount of energy. The 

lifetime energy savings for equipment 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the year of compliance with 

amended and new standards (2018– 

2047), 7 relative to the base case without 

amended standards, amount to 0.18 

quadrillion British thermal units (quads) 

of cumulative energy. This represents a 

savings of 8 percent relative to the 

energy use of these products in the base 

case. 

The cumulative national net present 

value (NPV) of total customer savings of 

the amended standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers in 2013$ ranges 

from $0.430 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $0.942 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate 8). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating cost savings minus the 

estimated increased installed costs for 

equipment purchased in the period from 

2018–2047, discounted back to the 

current year (2014). 

In addition, the amended standards 

are expected to have significant 

environmental benefits. The energy 

savings described above are estimated to 

result in cumulative emission 

reductions of 10.9 million metric tons 

(MMt) 9 of carbon dioxide (CO2), 16.2 

thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

0.1 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 

(N2O), 47.4 thousand tons of methane 

(CH4), 0.03 tons of mercury (Hg),10 and 

9.3 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) based on energy savings from 

equipment purchased over the period 

from 2018–2047.11 The cumulative 

reduction in CO2 emissions through 

2030 amounts to 4 MMt, which is 

equivalent to the emissions resulting 

from the annual electricity use of over 

half a million homes. 

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the social cost of carbon, or SCC) 

developed by a recent Federal 

interagency process.12 The derivation of 

the SCC value is discussed in section 

IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate 

for each set of SCC values, DOE 

estimates the net present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reduction is 

between $0.08 and $1.11 billion, 

expressed in 2013$ and discounted to 

2014, with a value of $0.36 billion using 

the central SCC case represented by 

$40.5/t in 2015. DOE also estimates the 

net present monetary value of the NOX

emissions reduction, expressed in 2013$ 

and discounted to 2014, is between $2.1 

and $22.0 million at a 7-percent 

discount rate, and between $4.2 and 

$43.4 million at a 3-percent discount 

rate.13

Table I.4 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from these new and amended 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

14 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2014, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits 

except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the 

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

in Table I.4. From the present value, DOE then 

calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year 

period (2018 through 2047) that yields the same 

present value. The fixed annual payment is the 

annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

15The AEO2014 scenarios used are the ‘‘High 

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

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

MAKERS ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS * 

Category Present value 

million 2013$ 

Discount rate 

(%) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................... 654 7 

1,353 3 

CO2 at 5% dr, average .................................................................................................................................... 80 5 

CO2 at 3% dr, average .................................................................................................................................... 361 3 

CO2 at 2.5% dr, average ................................................................................................................................. 570 2.5 

CO2 at 3% dr, 95th perc .................................................................................................................................. 1,113 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/Ton) ** ....................................................................................... 12 7 

24 3 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................................................................................ 1,027 7 

1,738 3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ............................................................................................................................. 224 7 

411 3 

Net Benefits 

Including CO2 and NOX Reduction Monetized Value ..................................................................................... 803 7 

1,326 3 

* The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC in 2013$ in year 2015 under several scenarios. The values of $12, $40.5, and 

$62.4 per metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. 

The value of $119.0/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The SCC time series 

used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. 

** The value represents the average of the low and high NOX values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and the 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $40.5/t. 

The benefits and costs of these new 

and amended standards, for automatic 

commercial ice makers sold in 2018– 

2047, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value of 

the benefits from the operation of 

equipment that meets the amended 

standards (consisting primarily of 

operating cost savings from using less 

energy and water, minus increases in 

equipment installed cost, which is 

another way of representing customer 

NPV); and (2) the annualized monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.14

Although adding the values of 

operating savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides an 

important perspective, two issues 

should be considered. First, the national 

operating savings are domestic U.S. 

customer monetary savings that occur as 

a result of market transactions, whereas 

the value of CO2 reductions is based on 

a global value. Second, the assessments 

of operating cost savings and CO2

savings are performed with different 

methods that use different time frames 

for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured over the lifetimes of 

automatic commercial ice makers 

shipped from 2018 to 2047. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the 

present value of some future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of 1 ton of CO2 in each year. 

These impacts continue well beyond 

2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the amended standards are 

shown in Table I.5. (All monetary 

values below are expressed in 2013$.) 

Table I.5 shows the primary, low net 

benefits, and high net benefits scenarios. 

The primary estimate is the estimate in 

which the operating cost savings were 

calculated using the Annual Energy 

Outlook 2014 (AEO2014) Reference Case 

forecast of future electricity prices. The 

low net benefits estimate and the high 

net benefits estimate are based on the 

low and high electricity price scenarios 

from the AEO2014 forecast, 

respectively.15 Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for benefits and costs, the 

cost in the primary estimate of the 

standards amended in this rule is $22 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs. (Note that DOE used a 3-percent 

discount rate along with the 

corresponding SCC series value of 

$40.5/ton in 2013$ to calculate the 

monetized value of CO2 emissions 

reductions.) The annualized benefits are 

$65 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $20 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $1.19 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

annualized net benefit amounts to $64 

million. At a 3-percent discount rate for 

all benefits and costs, the cost in the 

primary estimate of the amended 

standards presented in this rule is $23 

million per year in increased equipment 

costs. The benefits are $75 million per 

year in reduced operating costs, $20 

million in CO2 reductions, and $1.33 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to $74 

million per year. 

DOE also calculated the low net 

benefits and high net benefits estimates 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4651 

16For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 17All 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). 

by calculating the operating cost savings 

and shipments at the AEO2014 low 

economic growth case and high 

economic growth case scenarios, 

respectively. The low and high benefits 

for incremental installed costs were 

derived using the low and high price 

learning scenarios. The net benefits and 

costs for low and high net benefits 

estimates were calculated in the same 

manner as the primary estimate by using 

the corresponding values of operating 

cost savings and incremental installed 

costs. 

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

Discount rate 

(%) 

Primary 

estimate* 

million 2013$ 

Low net 

benefits 

estimate * 

million 2013$ 

High net 

benefits 

estimate * 

million 2013$ 

Benefits 

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

3 

65 

75 

62 

71 

68 

80 

CO2 at 5% dr, average ** ................................................................. 5 6 6 6 

CO2 at 3% dr, average ** ................................................................. 3 20 20 21 

CO2 at 2.5% dr, average ** .............................................................. 2.5 29 28 30 

CO2 at 3% dr, 95th perc ** .............................................................. 3 62 60 64 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/Ton) ** ....................... 7 

3 

1.19 

1.33 

1.16 

1.29 

1.22 

1.36 

Total Benefits (Operating Cost Savings, CO2 Reduction and NOX

Reduction) † ................................................................................. 7 

3 

86 

97 

82 

92 

90 

102 

Costs 

Total Incremental Installed Costs .................................................... 7 

3 

22 

23 

23 

24 

21 

22 

Net Benefits Less Costs 

Total Benefits Less Incremental Costs ............................................ 7 

3 

64 

74 

60 

68 

69 

80 

* The primary, low, and high estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices from the AEO2014 Reference Case, Low Economic Growth Case, and 

High Economic Growth Case, respectively. 

** These values represent global values (in 2013$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2015 under several scenarios. The values of $12, 

$40.5, and $62.4 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $119.0 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. See section 

IV.L for details. For NOX, an average value ($2,684) of the low ($476) and high ($4,893) values was used. 

† Total monetary benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of NOX and CO2 emissions calculated at a 3-percent discount rate (averaged across three integrated assessment models), which is equal to $40.5/ton (in 2013$). 

D. Conclusion 

Based on the analyses culminating in 

this final rule, DOE found the benefits 

to the nation of the amended standards 

(energy savings, consumer LCC savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefit, and 

emission reductions) outweigh the 

burdens (loss of INPV and LCC 

increases for some users of this 

equipment). DOE has concluded that the 

standards in this final rule represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is both technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant conservation 

of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 

6313(d)(4)) 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this final rule, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of amended standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C16 of EPCA, Public Law 

94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified), added by Public Law 95–619, 

Title IV, section 441(a), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, a program 

covering certain industrial equipment, 

which includes automatic commercial 

ice makers, the focus of this rule.17

EPCA prescribed energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers that produce cube type ice with 

capacities between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/ 

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

requires DOE to review these standards 

and determine, by January 1, 2015, 

whether amending the applicable 

standards is technically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)(A)) If amended standards are 

technically feasible and economically 

justified, DOE must issue a final rule by 

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

Additionally, EPCA granted DOE the 

authority to conduct rulemakings to 

establish new standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers not covered by 

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

that authority in this rulemaking. (42 

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

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

equipment generally consists of four 

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

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. For automatic commercial 

ice makers, DOE is responsible for the 

entirety of this program. Subject to 

certain criteria and conditions, DOE is 

required to develop test procedures to 

measure the energy efficiency, energy 

use, or estimated annual operating cost 

of each type or class of covered 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314) 

Manufacturers of covered equipment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 to the 

public regarding the energy use or 

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

6315(b), 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must 

use these test procedures to determine 

whether that equipment complies with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 

The DOE test procedure for automatic 

commercial ice makers currently 

appears at title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart H. 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing amended 

standards for covered equipment. As 

indicated above, any amended standard 

for covered equipment must be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any 

standard that would not result in the 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

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

also may not prescribe a standard: (1) 

For certain equipment, including 

automatic commercial ice makers, if no 

test procedure has been established for 

the product; or (2) if DOE determines, 

by rule that such standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B) 

and 6313(d)(4)) In deciding whether a 

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

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

6313(d)(4)) DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard, and by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven factors: 

1. The economic impact of the standard on 

manufacturers and consumers of the 

equipment subject to the standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered equipment in the type (or class) 

compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the 

covered equipment that are likely to result 

from the imposition of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of energy, or 

as applicable, water, savings likely to result 

directly from the imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered equipment likely 

to result from the imposition of the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the 

U.S. Attorney General (Attorney General), 

that is likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

6. The need for national energy and water 

conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary considers 

relevant. 

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

6313(d)(4)) 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

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

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard if interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the standard is likely 

to result in the unavailability in the 

United States of any covered product 

type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. 

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

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. 42 U.S.C. 

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

III.E.2 presents additional discussion 

about the rebuttable presumption 

payback period. 

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

6316(a) specifies requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a type or 

class of covered equipment that has two 

or more subcategories that may justify 

different standard levels. DOE must 

specify a different standard level than 

that which applies generally to such 

type or class of equipment for any group 

of covered products that has the same 

function or intended use if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group (A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered equipment within such type (or 

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

performance-related feature that other 

equipment within such type (or class) 

do not have and such feature justifies a 

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

6295(q)(1)) and 6316(a)) In determining 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard for a group 

of equipment, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) and 6316(a)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

6316(f)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption for 

particular State laws or regulations in 

accordance with the test procedures and 

other provisions set forth under 42 

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

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on October 

18, 2005, DOE adopted the energy 

conservation standards and water 

conservation standards prescribed by 

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

automatic commercial ice makers 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010. 70 FR 60407, 60415–16. These 

standards consist of maximum energy 

use and maximum condenser water use 

to produce 100 pounds of ice for 

automatic commercial ice makers with 

harvest rates between 50 and 2,500 lb 

ice/24 hours. These standards appear at 

10 CFR part 431, subpart H, Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers. Table II.1 

presents DOE’s current energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers. 

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

BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 2010 

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice 

Maximum condenser 

water use * 

gal/100 lb ice 

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4653 

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

BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1, 2010—Continued 

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice 

Maximum condenser 

water use * 

gal/100 lb ice 

≥1,436 4.0 200–0.022H. 

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

≥450 6.89–0.0011H Not Applicable. 

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

≥1,000 5.10 Not Applicable. 

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

≥934 5.30 Not Applicable. 

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

≥200 7.60 191–0.0315H. 

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

≥175 9.80 Not Applicable. 

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

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

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

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

As stated above, EPCA prescribes 

energy conservation standards and 

water conservation standards for certain 

cube type automatic commercial ice 

makers with harvest rates between 50 

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

heads (IMHs) using air or water for 

cooling and ice makers with remote 

condensing with or without a remote 

compressor. Compliance with these 

standards was required as of January 1, 

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

adopted these standards and placed 

them under 10 CFR part 431, subpart H, 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. 

In addition, EPCA requires DOE to 

conduct a rulemaking to determine 

whether to amend the standards 

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

and if DOE determines that amendment 

is warranted, DOE must also issue a 

final rule establishing such amended 

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

6313(d)(3)(A)) 

Furthermore, EPCA granted DOE 

authority to set standards for additional 

types of automatic commercial ice 

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

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

Additional types of automatic 

commercial ice makers DOE identified 

as candidates for standards to be 

established in this rulemaking include 

flake and nugget, as well as batch type 

ice makers that are not included in the 

EPCA definition of cube type ice 

makers. 

To satisfy its requirement to conduct 

a rulemaking, DOE initiated the current 

rulemaking on November 4, 2010 by 

publishing on its Web site its 

‘‘Rulemaking Framework for Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers.’’ The 

Framework document is available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!document

Detail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037- 

0024. 

DOE also published a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

availability of the Framework 

document, as well as a public meeting 

to discuss the document. The notice 

also solicited comment on the matters 

raised in the document. 75 FR 70852 

(Nov. 19, 2010). The Framework 

document described the procedural and 

analytical approaches that DOE 

anticipated using to evaluate amended 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers, and identified various issues to 

be resolved in the rulemaking. 

DOE held the Framework public 

meeting on December 16, 2010, at which 

it: (1) Presented the contents of the 

Framework document; (2) described the 

analyses it planned to conduct during 

the rulemaking; (3) sought comments 

from interested parties on these 

subjects; and (4) in general, sought to 

inform interested parties about, and 

facilitate their involvement in, the 

rulemaking. Major issues discussed at 

the public meeting included: (1) The 

scope of coverage for the rulemaking; (2) 

equipment classes; (3) analytical 

approaches and methods used in the 

rulemaking; (4) impacts of standards 

and burden on manufacturers; (5) 

technology options; (6) distribution 

channels, shipments, and end users; (7) 

impacts of outside regulations; and (8) 

environmental issues. At the meeting 

and during the comment period on the 

Framework document, DOE received 

many comments that helped it identify 

and resolve issues pertaining to 

automatic commercial ice makers 

relevant to this rulemaking. 

DOE then gathered additional 

information and performed preliminary 

analyses to help review standards for 

this equipment. This process 

culminated in DOE publishing a notice 

of another public meeting (the January 

2012 notice) to discuss and receive 

comments regarding the tools and 

methods DOE used in performing its 

preliminary analysis, as well as the 

analyses results. 77 FR 3404 (Jan. 24, 

2012) DOE also invited written 

comments on these subjects and 

announced the availability on its Web 

site of a preliminary analysis technical 

support document (preliminary analysis 

TSD). Id. The preliminary analysis TSD 

is available at: www.regulations.gov/#

!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD0037-0026. DOE sought comments 

concerning other relevant issues that 

could affect amended standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers. Id. 

The preliminary analysis TSD 

provided an overview of DOE’s review 

of the standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers, discussed the 

comments DOE received in response to 

the Framework document, and 

addressed issues including the scope of 

coverage of the rulemaking. The 

document also described the analytical 

framework that DOE used (and 

continues to use) in considering 

amended standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers, including a 

description of the methodology, the 

analytical tools, and the relationships 

between the various analyses that are 

part of this rulemaking. Additionally, 

the preliminary analysis TSD presented 

in detail each analysis that DOE had 

performed for this equipment up to that 

point, including descriptions of inputs, 

sources, methodologies, and results. 

These analyses were as follows: (1) A 

market and technology assessment, (2) a 

screening analysis, (3) an engineering 

analysis, (4) an energy and water use 

analysis, (5) a markups analysis, (6) a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

life-cycle cost analysis, (7) a payback 

period analysis, (8) a shipments 

analysis, (9) a national impact analysis 

(NIA) and (10) a preliminary 

manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). 

The public meeting announced in the 

January 2012 notice took place on 

February 16, 2012 (February 2012 

preliminary analysis public meeting). At 

the February 2012 preliminary analysis 

public meeting, DOE presented the 

methodologies and results of the 

analyses set forth in the preliminary 

analysis TSD. Interested parties 

provided comments on the following 

issues: (1) Equipment classes; (2) 

technology options; (3) energy modeling 

and validation of engineering models; 

(4) cost modeling; (5) market 

information, including distribution 

channels and distribution markups; (6) 

efficiency levels; (7) life-cycle costs to 

customers, including installation, repair 

and maintenance costs, and water and 

wastewater prices; and (8) historical 

shipments. 

On March 17, 2014, DOE published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

in the Federal Register (March 2014 

NOPR). 79 FR 14846. In the March 2014 

NOPR, DOE addressed, in detail, the 

comments received in earlier stages of 

rulemaking, and proposed amended 

energy conservation standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers. In 

conjunction with the March 2014 

NOPR, DOE also published on its Web 

site the complete technical support 

document (TSD) for the proposed rule, 

which incorporated the analyses DOE 

conducted and technical documentation 

for each analysis. Also published on 

DOE’s Web site were the engineering 

analysis spreadsheets, the LCC 

spreadsheet, and the national impact 

analysis standard spreadsheet. These 

materials are available at: http://www1.

eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/29. 

The standards which DOE proposed 

for automatic commercial ice makers at 

the NOPR stage of this rulemaking are 

shown in Table II.2 and Table II.3. They 

are provided solely for background 

informational purposes and differ from 

the amended standards set forth in this 

final rule. 

TABLE II.2—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATCH TYPE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kilowatt-hours (kWh)/

100 lb ice * 

Maximum condenser 

water use 

gal/100 lb ice ** 

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

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

≥1,436 and <2,500 3.6 200–0.022H. 

≥2,500 and <4,000 3.6 145. 

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

≥450 and <875 5.17—0.0008H NA. 

≥875 and <2,210 4.5 NA. 

≥2,210 and <2,500 6.89—0.0011H NA. 

≥2,500 and <4,000 4.1 NA. 

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

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

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

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

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

≥200 and <2,500 5.7 191–0.0315H. 

≥2,500 and <4,000 5.7 112. 

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

≥175 and <4,000 6.9 NA. 

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

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

TABLE II.3—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONTINUOUS TYPE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE

MAKERS

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice * 

Maximum condenser 

water use 

gal/100 lb ice ** 

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

≥900 and <2,500 3.8 160–0.0176H. 

≥2,500 and <4,000 3.8 116. 

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

≥700 and <4,000 5.0 NA. 

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

≥850 and <4,000 4.6 NA. 

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

≥850 and <4,000 4.8 NA. 

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

≥900 and <2,500 4.9 153–0.0252H. 

≥2,500 and <4,000 4.9 90. 

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

≥700 and <4,000 5.7 NA. 

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4655 

18A parenthetical reference at the end of a 

quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the 

item in the public record. 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

identified nineteen issues on which it 

was particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties: Standards compliance dates, 

utilization factors, baseline efficiency, 

screening analysis, maximum 

technology feasibility, markups, 

equipment life, installation costs, openvs closed loop installations, ice maker 

shipments by type of equipment, 

intermittency of manufacturer R&D and 

impact of standards, INPV results and 

impact of standards, small businesses, 

consumer utility and performance, 

analysis period, social cost of carbon, 

remote to rack equipment, design 

options associated with each TSD, and 

standard levels for batch type ice 

makers over 2,500 lb ice/hour. 79 FR 

14846 at 14947–49. After the 

publication of the March 2014 NOPR, 

DOE received written comments on 

these and other issues. DOE also held a 

public meeting in Washington, DC, on 

April 14, 2014, to discuss and receive 

comments regarding the tools and 

methods DOE used in the NOPR 

analysis, as well as the results of the 

analysis. DOE also invited written 

comments and announced the 

availability of a NOPR analysis 

technical support document (NOPR 

TSD). The NOPR TSD is available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!document

Detail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037- 

0061. 

The NOPR TSD described in detail 

DOE’s analysis of potential standard 

levels for automatic commercial ice 

makers. The document also described 

the analytical framework used in 

considering standard levels, including a 

description of the methodology, the 

analytical tools, and the relationships 

between the various analyses. In 

addition, the NOPR TSD presented each 

analysis that DOE performed to evaluate 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

including descriptions of inputs, 

sources, methodologies, and results. 

DOE included the same analyses that 

were conducted at the preliminary 

analysis stage, with revisions based on 

comments received and additional 

research. 

At the public meeting held on April 

14, 2014, DOE presented the 

methodologies and results of the 

analyses set for in the NOPR TSD. 

Interested parties provided comments. 

Key issues raised by stakeholders 

included: (1) Whether the energy model 

accurately predicts efficiency 

improvements; (2) the size restrictions 

and applications of 22-inch wide ice 

makers; (3) the efficiency distributions 

assumed for shipments of icemakers; 

and (4) the impact on manufacturers 

relating to design of icemaker models, in 

light of the proposed compliance date of 

3 years after publication of the final 

rule. 

In response to comments regarding 

the energy model used in the analysis, 

DOE held a public meeting on June 19, 

2014 in order to facilitate an additional 

review of the energy model, gather 

additional feedback and data on the 

energy model, and to allow for a more 

thorough explanation of DOE’s use of 

the model in the engineering analysis. 

79 FR 33877 (June 13, 2014). At that 

meeting, DOE presented the energy 

model, demonstrated its operations, and 

described how it was used in the 

rulemaking’s engineering analysis. DOE 

indicated in this meeting that it was 

considering modifications to its NOPR 

analyses based on the NOPR comments 

and additional research and information 

gathering. 

On September 11, 2014, DOE 

published a notice of data availability 

(NODA) in the Federal Register 

(September 2014 NODA). 79 FR 54215. 

The purpose of the September 2014 

NODA was to notify industry, 

manufacturers, customer groups, 

efficiency advocates, government 

agencies, and other stakeholders of the 

publication of the updated rulemaking 

analysis for new and/or amended energy 

conservation standards for automatic ice 

makers. The comments received since 

the publication of the March 2014 

NOPR, including those received at the 

April 2014 and the June 2014 public 

meetings, provided inputs which led 

DOE to revise its analysis. Stakeholders 

also submitted additional information to 

DOE’s consultant pursuant to nondisclosure agreements regarding 

efficiency gains and costs of potential 

design options. DOE reviewed 

additional market data, including 

published ratings of available ice 

makers, to recalibrate its engineering 

analysis. Generally, the revisions to the 

NOPR analysis as specified in the 

NODA include modifications of inputs 

for its engineering, LCC, and NIA 

analyses, adjustments of its energy 

model calculations, and more thorough 

considerations of size-constrained ice 

maker applications. The analysis 

revisions addressing size-constrained 

applications include development of 

engineering analyses for three sizeconstrained equipment categories and 

restructuring of the LCC and NIA 

analyses to consider size constraints for 

applicable equipment classes. DOE 

encouraged stakeholders to provide 

comments and additional information in 

response to the September NODA 

publication. 

This final rule responds to the issues 

raised by commenters for the March 

2014 NOPR and the September 2014 

NODA.18

III. General Discussion 

A. Equipment Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered equipment into 

equipment classes by the type of energy 

use or by capacity or other performancerelated features that justifies a different 

standard. In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider such factors as the utility to the 

consumer of the feature and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) and 6316(a)) 

Throughout this rulemaking, DOE’s 

analysis has been based on a set of 

equipment classes derived from the 

existing DOE batch commercial ice 

maker standards, effective as of January 

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

review of the existing ice maker market. 

These equipment classes form the basis 

of analysis and public comments. In this 

final rule, equipment class names are 

frequently abbreviated. These 

abbreviations are shown on Table III.1. 

TABLE III.1—LIST OF EQUIPMENT CLASS ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Equipment type Condenser 

type 

Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours Ice type 

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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4656 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

19 In March 2011, AHRI published Addendum 1 

to Standard 810–2007, which revised the definition 

of ‘‘potable water use rate’’ and added new 

definitions for ‘‘purge or dump water’’ and ‘‘harvest 

water.’’ 

20EPCA defines automatic commercial ice maker 

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

assembly (not necessarily shipped in 1 package) 

that—(A) Consists of a condensing unit and icemaking section operating as an integrated unit, with 

means for making and harvesting ice; and (B) May 

include means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or 

storing and dispensing ice.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) 

explicitly sets standards for cube type ice makers 

up to 2,500 lb ice/24 hours, however, 6313(d)(2) 

establishes authority to set standards for other 

equipment types, such as those with capacities 

greater than 2,500 lb ice/24 hours, provided the 

equipment types meet the EPCA definition of an 

automatic commercial ice maker. 

TABLE III.1—LIST OF EQUIPMENT CLASS ABBREVIATIONS—Continued 

Abbreviation Equipment type Condenser 

type 

Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours Ice type 

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

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

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

1).

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

IMH–A–Extended–B * ** (also IMH–A– 

Large–B–2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NIA models, the low and high harvest rate models were denoted simply as B–1 and B–2. Where appropriate, the analyses add or perform 

weighted averages of the two typical sizes to present class level results. 

** IMH–A–Large–B was established by EPACT–2005 as a class between 450 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. In this rule, DOE analyzed this class 

as two ranges, which could either be considered ‘‘Large’’ and ‘‘Very Large’’ or ‘‘Medium’’ and ‘‘Large.’’ In the LCC and NIA modeling, this was 

denoted as B–1 and B–2. 

B. Test Procedure 

On December 8, 2006, DOE published 

a final rule in which it incorporated by 

reference Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 

810–2003, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers,’’ 

with a revised method for calculating 

energy use, as the DOE test procedure 

for this equipment. 71 FR 71340. The 

DOE rule included a clarification to the 

energy use rate equation to specify that 

the energy use be calculated using the 

entire mass of ice produced during the 

testing period, normalized to 100 lb ice 

produced. Id. at 71350. ARI Standard 

810–2003 requires performance tests to 

be conducted according to the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI)/

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 29–1988 

(reaffirmed 2005), ‘‘Method of Testing 

Automatic Ice Makers.’’ The DOE test 

procedure also incorporated by 

reference the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

29–1988 (Reaffirmed 2005) as the 

method of test. 

On January 11, 2012, DOE published 

a test procedure final rule (2012 test 

procedure final rule) in which it 

adopted several amendments to the DOE 

test procedure. 77 FR 1591. The 2012 

test procedure final rule included an 

amendment to incorporate by reference 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 

810–2007 with Addendum 1 19 as the 

DOE test procedure for this equipment. 

AHRI Standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1 amends ARI Standard 

810–2003 to expand the capacity range 

of covered equipment, provide 

definitions and specific test procedures 

for batch and continuous type ice 

makers, provide a definition for ice 

hardness factor, and incorporate several 

new or amended definitions regarding 

how water consumption and capacity 

are measured, particularly for 

continuous type machines. 77 FR at 

1592–93. The 2012 test procedure final 

rule also included an amendment to 

incorporate by reference the updated 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–2009. Id. at 

1613. 

In addition, the 2012 test procedure 

final rule included several amendments 

designed to address issues that were not 

accounted for by the previous DOE test 

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

First, DOE expanded the scope of the 

test procedure to include equipment 

with capacities from 50 to 4,000 lb ice/ 

24 hours.20 DOE also adopted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4657 

amendments to provide test methods for 

continuous type ice makers and to 

standardize the measurement of energy 

and water use for continuous type ice 

makers with respect to ice hardness. In 

the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE 

also clarified the test method and 

reporting requirements for remote 

condensing automatic commercial ice 

makers designed for connection to 

remote compressor racks. Finally, the 

2012 test procedure final rule 

discontinued the use of the clarified 

energy use rate calculation and instead 

required energy-use to be calculated per 

100 lb ice as specified in ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 29–2009. The 2012 

test procedure final rule became 

effective on February 10, 2012, and the 

changes set forth in the final rule 

became mandatory for equipment 

testing starting January 7, 2013. 77 FR 

1591. 

The test procedure amendments 

established in the 2012 test procedure 

final rule are required to be used in 

conjunction with new and amended 

standards promulgated as a result of this 

standards rulemaking. Thus, 

manufacturers must use the amended 

test procedure to demonstrate 

compliance with the new and amended 

energy conservation standards on the 

compliance date of any energy 

conservation standards established as 

part of this rulemaking. 77 FR at 1593 

(Jan. 11, 2012). 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis, which is based on information 

that the Department has gathered on all 

current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such 

analysis, DOE develops a list of design 

options for consideration, in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of these 

options for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

a design option to be technologically 

feasible if it is used by the relevant 

industry or if a working prototype has 

been developed. Technologies 

incorporated in commercially available 

equipment or in working prototypes 

were considered technologically 

feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

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

DOE considers technologies that are 

proprietary, it will not consider 

efficiency levels that can only be 

reached through the use of proprietary 

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

which could allow a single 

manufacturer to monopolize the market. 

Once DOE has determined that 

particular design options are 

technologically feasible, DOE further 

evaluates each of these design options 

in light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on equipment utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv) Chapter 4 of the final rule 

TSD discusses the results of the 

screening analyses for automatic 

commercial ice makers. Specifically, it 

presents the designs DOE considered, 

those it screened out, and those that are 

the bases for the TSLs considered in this 

rulemaking. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE adopts (or does not adopt) 

an amended or new energy conservation 

standard for a type or class of covered 

equipment such as automatic 

commercial ice makers, it determines 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible for such equipment. (See 42 

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

Accordingly, DOE determined the 

maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for automatic commercial ice 

makers in the engineering analysis using 

the design options that passed the 

screening analysis. 

As indicated previously, whether 

efficiency levels exist or can be 

achieved in commonly used equipment 

is not relevant to whether they are 

considered max-tech levels. DOE 

considers technologies to be 

technologically feasible if they are 

incorporated in any currently available 

equipment or working prototypes. 

Hence, a max-tech level results from the 

combination of design options predicted 

to result in the highest efficiency level 

possible for an equipment class, with 

such design options consisting of 

technologies already incorporated in 

automatic commercial ice makers or 

working prototypes. DOE notes that it 

reevaluated the efficiency levels, 

including the max-tech levels, when it 

updated its results for the NODA and 

final rule. See chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD for the results of the analyses and 

a list of technologies included in maxtech equipment. Table III.2 and Table 

III.3 shows the max-tech levels 

determined in the engineering analysis 

for batch and continuous type automatic 

commercial ice makers, respectively. 

TABLE III.2—FINAL RULE ‘‘MAX-TECH’’ LEVELS FOR BATCH AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment type * Energy use lower than baseline 

IMH–W–Small–B ......................................................... 23.9%, 21.5% (22-inch wide). 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................... 18.1%. 

IMH–W–Large–B ......................................................... 8.3% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours), 7.4% (at 2,600 lb ice/24 hours). 

IMH–A–Small–B .......................................................... 25.5%, 18.1% (22-inch wide). 

IMH–A–Large–B .......................................................... 23.4% (at 800 lb ice/24 hours), 15.8% (at 590 lb ice/24 hours, 22-inch wide), 11.8% (at 

1,500 lb ice/24 hours). 

RCU–Small–B ............................................................. Not directly analyzed. 

RCU–Large–B ............................................................. 17.3% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours), 13.9% (at 2,400 lb ice/24 hours). 

SCU–W–Small–B ........................................................ Not directly analyzed. 

SCU–W–Large–B ........................................................ 29.8%. 

SCU–A–Small–B ......................................................... 32.7%. 

SCU–A–Large–B ......................................................... 29.1%. 

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

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

modeled as one with line losses used to distinguish standards. 

Note: For equipment classes that were not analyzed, DOE did not develop specific cost-efficiency curves but attributed the curve (and maximum technology point) from one of the analyzed equipment classes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE III.3—FINAL RULE ‘‘MAX-TECH’’ LEVELS FOR CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment type * Energy use lower than baseline 

IMH–W–Small–C ...................................................................................... Not directly analyzed. 

IMH–W–Large–C ...................................................................................... Not directly analyzed. 

IMH–A–Small–C ....................................................................................... 25.7%. 

IMH–A–Large–C ....................................................................................... 23.3% lb ice. 

RCU–Small–C .......................................................................................... 26.6%. 

RCU–Large–C .......................................................................................... Not directly analyzed. 

SCU–W–Small–C ..................................................................................... Not directly analyzed. 

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

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 26.6%. 

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

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

Note: For equipment classes that were not analyzed, DOE did not develop specific cost-efficiency curves but attributed the curve (and maximum technology point) from one of the analyzed equipment classes. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from automatic commercial ice 

makers purchased during a 30-year 

period that begins in the year of 

compliance with amended standards 

(2018–2047). The savings are measured 

over the entire lifetime of products 

purchased in the 30-year period. DOE 

used the NIA model to estimate the 

national energy savings (NES) for 

equipment purchased over the period 

2018–2047. The model forecasts total 

energy use over the analysis period for 

each representative equipment class at 

efficiency levels set by each of the 

considered TSLs. DOE then compares 

the energy use at each TSL to the basecase energy use to obtain the NES. The 

NIA model is described in section IV.H 

of this rule and in chapter 10 of the final 

rule TSD. 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model 

to estimate energy savings from 

amended standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers. The NIA 

spreadsheet model (described in section 

IV.H of this preamble) calculates energy 

savings in site energy, which is the 

energy directly consumed by products 

at the locations where they are used. 

Because automatic commercial ice 

makers use water, water savings were 

quantified in the same way as energy 

savings. 

For electricity, DOE reports national 

energy savings in terms of the savings in 

the energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. To calculate 

this quantity, DOE derives annual 

conversion factors from the model used 

to prepare the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) AEO. 

DOE also has begun to estimate fullfuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 

(August 18, 2011), as amended by 77 FR 

49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuelcycle (FFC) metric includes the energy 

consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels, and thus 

presents a more complete picture of the 

impacts of energy efficiency standards. 

DOE’s approach is based on calculations 

of an FFC multiplier for each of the 

fuels used by automatic commercial ice 

makers. 

2. Significance of Savings 

EPCA prohibits DOE from adopting a 

standard that would not result in 

significant additional energy savings. 

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

6313(d)(4)While the term ‘‘significant’’ 

is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

in Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress 

intended significant energy savings to 

be savings that were not ‘‘genuinely 

trivial.’’ The energy savings for all of the 

TSLs considered in this rulemaking 

(presented in section V.B.3.a) are 

nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE 

considers them ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of section 325 of EPCA. 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As discussed in section III.E.1, EPCA 

provides seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

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

6313(d)(4) The following sections 

generally discuss how DOE is 

addressing each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. For further details and 

the results of DOE’s analyses pertaining 

to economic justification, see sections 

IV and V of this rule. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Commercial Customers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standard on 

manufacturers, DOE first determines its 

quantitative impacts using an annual 

cash flow approach. This includes both 

a short-term assessment (based on the 

cost and capital requirements associated 

with new or amended standards during 

the period between the announcement 

of a regulation and the compliance date 

of the regulation) and a long-term 

assessment (based on the costs and 

marginal impacts over the 30-year 

analysis period). The impacts analyzed 

include INPV (which values the 

industry based on expected future cash 

flows), cash flows by year, changes in 

revenue and income, and other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

potential impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, paying particular 

attention to impacts on small 

manufacturers. Third, DOE considers 

the impact of new or amended 

standards on domestic manufacturer 

employment and manufacturing 

capacity, as well as the potential for 

new or amended standards to result in 

plant closures and loss of capital 

investment. Finally, DOE takes into 

account cumulative impacts of other 

DOE regulations and non-DOE 

regulatory requirements on 

manufacturers. 

For individual customers, measures of 

economic impact include the changes in 

LCC and the PBP associated with new 

or amended standards. These measures 

are discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the economic impacts 

applicable to a particular rulemaking. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4659 

DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of 

potential standards on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

affected disproportionately by a national 

standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

To Increase in Price (Life Cycle Costs) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increase in the 

price of the covered product that are 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

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

conducts this comparison in its LCC and 

PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of equipment (including the cost 

of its installation) and the operating 

costs (including energy and 

maintenance and repair costs) 

discounted over the lifetime of the 

equipment. To account for uncertainty 

and variability in specific inputs, such 

as product lifetime and discount rate, 

DOE uses a distribution of values, with 

probabilities attached to each value. For 

its analysis, DOE assumes that 

consumers will purchase the covered 

products in the first year of compliance 

with amended standards. 

The LCC savings and the PBP for the 

considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to a base-case 

scenario, which reflects likely trends in 

the absence of new or amended 

standards. DOE identifies the percentage 

of consumers estimated to receive LCC 

savings or experience an LCC increase, 

in addition to the average LCC savings 

associated with a particular standard 

level. DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.G. 

c. Energy Savings 

While significant conservation of 

energy is a statutory requirement for 

imposing an energy conservation 

standard, EPCA also requires DOE, in 

determining the economic justification 

of a standard, to consider the total 

projected energy savings that are 

expected to result directly from the 

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

and 6313(d)(4)) DOE uses NIA 

spreadsheet results in its consideration 

of total projected savings. For the results 

of DOE’s analyses related to the 

potential energy savings, see section 

IV.H of this preamble and chapter 10 of 

the final rule TSD. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

In establishing classes of equipment, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE seeks to develop standards that 

would not lessen the utility or 

performance of the equipment under 

consideration. DOE has determined that 

none of the TSLs presented in today’s 

final rule would reduce the utility or 

performance of the equipment 

considered in the rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 

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

During the screening analysis, DOE 

eliminated from consideration any 

technology that would adversely impact 

customer utility. For the results of 

DOE’s analyses related to the potential 

impact of amended standards on 

equipment utility and performance, see 

section IV.C of this preamble and 

chapter 4 of the final rule TSD. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA requires DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from setting new or amended 

standards for covered equipment. 

Consistent with its obligations under 

EPCA, DOE sought the views of the 

United States Department of Justice 

(DOJ). DOE asked DOJ to provide a 

written determination of the impact, if 

any, of any lessening of competition 

likely to result from the amended 

standards, together with an analysis of 

the nature and extent of such impact. 42 

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

DOE transmitted a copy of its proposed 

rule to the Attorney General with a 

request that the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) provide its determination on this 

issue. DOJ’s response, that the proposed 

energy conservation standards are 

unlikely to have a significant adverse 

impact on competition, is reprinted at 

the end of this rule. 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Another factor that DOE must 

consider in determining whether a new 

or amended standard is economically 

justified is the need for national energy 

and water conservation. (42 U.S.C. 

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

energy savings from new or amended 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

may also result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how new or amended 

standards may affect the Nation’s 

needed power generation capacity, as 

discussed in section IV.M. 

Amended standards also are likely to 

result in environmental benefits in the 

form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases 

associated with energy production and 

use. DOE conducts an emissions 

analysis to estimate how standards may 

affect these emissions, as discussed in 

section IV.K. DOE reports the emissions 

impacts from each TSL it considered, in 

section V.B.6 of this rule. DOE also 

estimates the economic value of 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

considered TSLs, as discussed in 

section IV.L. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary, in 

determining whether a new or amended 

standard is economically justified, to 

consider any other factors that the 

Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 

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

6313(d)(4)) There were no other factors 

considered for this final rule. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

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

provides for a rebuttable presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the additional 

cost to the customer of equipment that 

meets the new or amended standard 

level is less than three times the value 

of the first-year energy (and, as 

applicable, water) savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s 

LCC and PBP analyses generate values 

that calculate the PBP for customers of 

potential new and amended energy 

conservation standards. These analyses 

include, but are not limited to, the 3- 

year PBP contemplated under the 

rebuttable presumption test. However, 

DOE routinely conducts a full economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to the customer, manufacturer, 

Nation, and environment, as required 

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

6313(d)(4). The results of these analyses 

serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate 

the economic justification for a potential 

standard level (thereby supporting or 

rebutting the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.G.12 of this rule 

and chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Comments 

A. General Rulemaking Issues 

During the April 2014 and June 2014 

public meetings, and in subsequent 

written comments in response to the 

NOPR and NODA, stakeholders 

provided input regarding general issues 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4660 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

pertinent to the rulemaking, such as 

issues regarding proposed standard 

levels and the compliance date. These 

issues are discussed in this section. 

1. Proposed Standard Levels 

In response to the level proposed in 

the NOPR (TSL 3), Manitowoc 

commented that there are significant 

deficiencies in the models and cost 

assumptions that were used to arrive at 

the proposed efficiency levels and that, 

consequently, the selected levels are not 

optimal from a life-cycle cost 

standpoint. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 24–26) Follett 

commented that DOE is recommending 

efficiency levels that are neither 

technologically nor economically 

justified. (Follett, No. 84 at p. 8) 

Hoshizaki and Scotsman both 

recommended DOE select NOPR TSL 1 

(Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 5–6; Scotsman, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 

Public Meeting Transcript, at p. 44–46) 

Scotsman stated that doing so effective 

2020 is technologically feasible, 

economically justified, consistent with 

past regulations, and will save a 

significant amount of energy. 

(Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

44–46) Although the following comment 

regarding choosing a standard level 

mentioned ‘‘ELs,’’ efficiency levels, DOE 

believes Hoshizaki intended that this 

comment refer to ‘‘TSLs,’’ trial standard 

levels levels and DOE has interpreted 

the comment accordingly. Hoshizaki 

stated that NOPR EL1 (interpreted as 

TSL1) would garner similar savings as 

NOPR EL3 (interpreted as TSL3) while 

reducing the burden on the industry to 

meet such stringent standards in such a 

short amount of time. (Hoshizaki, No. 86 

at p. 5–6) 

Scotsman stated that they have not 

identified technology combinations that 

are suitable for achieving any efficiency 

level beyond NOPR TSL 1. (Scotsman, 

No. 85 at p. 8b) Scotsman added that 

they do not have data indicating that 

their machines will be able to meet 

NOPR TSL 3 using the design options 

under consideration. (Scotsman, No. 85 

at p. 7b) 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(PG&E) and San Diego Gas and Electric 

Company (SDG&E), commenting jointly, 

and a group including the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 

the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), the 

Alliance to Save Energy, Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and 

the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC) (Joint Commenters) 

both recommended that DOE adopt a 

higher TSL for ACIMs. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1–2; PG&E 

and SDG&E, No. 89 at p. 1–2) ASAP 

noted that based on their review of the 

certification database, there are products 

existing on the market today that meet 

the proposed standard levels. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

50–52) Joint Commenters urged DOE to 

adopt TSL 5 for batch type equipment 

and TSL 4 for continuous type 

equipment. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 

at p. 1–2) PG&E and SDG&E 

recommended that DOE adopt the 

maximum cost-effective TSL for each 

equipment class noting that DOE could 

adopt TSLs higher than TSL 3 while 

maintaining a net benefit to U.S. 

consumers. (PG&E and SDG&E, No. 89 

at p. 1–2) 

Although the NODA only provided 

data regarding the updated analysis and 

did not propose a standard level, several 

interested parties provided comment 

regarding the appropriateness of setting 

the ACIM energy conservation standard 

at a given NODA TSL. 

In their written comment, Manitowoc 

stated that the NODA analysis was an 

improvement over the original NOPR 

analysis. Manitowoc stated that they did 

not believe the standard should be set 

at a single TSL level for all equipment 

classes and suggested a different TSL 

level for each equipment class. 

Although the following comments 

regarding specific classes mention 

‘‘ELs,’’ efficiency levels, DOE believes 

Manitowoc intended that these 

comments apply to ‘‘TSLs,’’ trial 

standard levels and DOE has interpreted 

the comment accordingly. For IMH–A 

batch equipment with package widths 

less than 48 inches (the 48-inch 

corresponds to the 1,500 lb ice/24 hour 

representative capacity), Manitowoc 

supported an efficiency level no higher 

than EL 3 (interpreted as TSL3). 

Manitowoc suggested that DOE adopt a 

standard that would be limited to 5% 

improvement in efficiency over baseline 

for the IMH–A–B2 (48-inch wide) 

equipment. DOE believes Manitowoc’s 

third point in the comments, citing the 

‘‘IMH-small’’ class refers to IMH–W– 

Small–B, for which Manitowoc 

indicated that the standard level should 

be set no higher than EL 3 (interpreted 

as TSL3). Manitowoc also suggested 

DOE adopt standards with efficiency 

gains no greater than 4.7% and 3.7% 

efficiency gains, respectfully, for the 

MH–W–Large–B1 (1,500 lb ice/24 hours 

representative capacity) and IMH–W– 

Large–B2 (2,600 lb ice/24 hours 

representative capacity) equipment. 

Manitowoc suggested that DOE adopt 

EL 2 (interpreted as TSL2) for the RCU– 

NRC–B1 (1,500 lb ice/24 hours 

representative capacity) and RCU–NRC– 

B2 (2,400 lb ice/24 hours representative 

capacity) equipment, as well as the 

SCU–A–Small and SCU–A–Large 

equipment classes and for 22-inch IMH 

equipment. For the RCU–NRC–Large– 

B1, Manitowoc indicated that the 20 

percent improvement in compressor 

energy efficiency ratio (EER) used in 

DOE’s analysis for this equipment is 

unrealistic. For the RCU–NRC–Large– 

B2, Manitowoc mentioned that the 

increase in condenser size considered in 

the DOE analysis would present 

significant issues with refrigerant charge 

management. For the SCU–A–Small–B 

class, Manitowoc indicated that the 

40% improvement in compressor EER 

considered in DOE’s analysis is not 

likely to be achieved and adding a tube 

row to the condenser may not be 

possible. For the SCU–A–Large–B class, 

Manitowoc similarly commented that 

the compressor EER improvement and 

condenser size increases considered in 

DOE’s analyses are unrealistic. For the 

22-inch IMH equipment, Manitowoc 

indicated that some of the considered 

design options (increase in evaporator 

size and/or a drain water heat 

exchanger) would not be feasible due to 

the compact nature of these units. 

Manitowoc suggested that DOE select 

EL 3 (interpreted as TSL3) for IMH–A– 

B small and large-1 batch equipment 

classes (not including 48′′ models), as 

well as the IMH-Small equipment class 

and all other equipment classes not 

specifically mentioned. (Manitowoc, 

No. 126 at p. 1–2) 

Ice-O-Matic requested that DOE select 

NODA TSL 3. (Ice-O-Matic, No. 121 at 

p. 1) Scotsman suggested that DOE 

select NODA TSL 2. (Scotsman, No. 125 

at p. 3) Hoshizaki suggested that DOE 

select NODA TSL 2 for batch units. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 124 at p. 3) 

ASAP encouraged DOE to adopt 

NODA TSL 5 for batch type remote 

condensing equipment and NODA TSL 

4 for all other equipment classes, noting 

that these choices would be cost 

effective. (ASAP, No. 127 at p. 1) CA 

IOU suggested that DOE adopt the 

NODA TSL for each equipment class 

that saves the most energy and has a 

positive NPV. CA IOU noted that DOE 

could adopt a level more stringent than 

NODA TSL 3 for all equipment classes 

while maintaining a net benefit to US 

consumers. (CA IOU, No. 129 at p. 1) 

DOE understands the concerns voiced 

by stakeholders regarding their future 

ability to meet standard levels as 

proposed in the NOPR. DOE must 

adhere to the EPCA guidelines for 

determining the appropriate level of 

standards that were outlined in sections 

III.E.1. In this Final Rule, DOE selected 

the TSL that best meets the EPCA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4661 

21 Details regarding EPA SNAP regulations are 

discussed in section IV.A.4. 

requirements for establishing that a 

standard is economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4)). 

Since the publication of the NOPR, DOE 

has revised and updated its analysis 

based on stakeholders comments 

received at the NOPR public meeting, 

comments made during the June 19 

meeting, and in written comments 

received in response to the NOPR and 

NODA. These updates included changes 

in its approach to calculating the energy 

use associated with groups of design 

options, changes in inputs for 

calculations of energy use and 

equipment manufacturing cost, and 

consideration of space-constrained 

applications. After applying these 

changes to the analyses, the efficiency 

levels that DOE determined to be cost 

effective changed considerably. The 

NODA comments described above 

reveal partial industry support for the 

standard levels chosen by DOE in the 

final rule. 

DOE notes that much of the 

commentary regarding the selection of 

efficiency levels for the standard are 

based on more detailed comments 

regarding the feasibility of design 

options, the savings that these design 

options can achieve, and their costs. 

DOE response regarding many of these 

comments is provided in section IV.D.3. 

2. Compliance Date 

In the March 2014 NOPR analysis, 

DOE assumed a 3-year period for 

manufacturers to prepare for 

compliance. DOE requested comments 

as to whether a January 1, 2018 effective 

date provides an inadequate period for 

compliance and what economic impacts 

would be mitigated by a later effective 

date. 

Following the publication of the 

NOPR, several manufacturers and 

NAFEM expressed an expected inability 

to meet the proposed standard levels 

within the three year compliance 

period. (Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 2–3, 

Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 2b, Hoshizaki, 

No. 86 at p. 2, NAFEM, No. 82 at pg. 2– 

3) Manitowoc and Hoshizaki both 

commented that a 5-year compliance 

period would be necessary for this 

rulemaking. (Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 2– 

3; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 2) Scotsman 

commented that an 8-year compliance 

period would be more feasible for the 

technology specification, R&D 

investment, performance evaluation, 

reliability evaluation, and 

manufacturing required for product 

redesign. Scotsman added that the 

negative economic impacts of the rule 

would be mitigated by a later effective 

date. (Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 2b–3) 

AHRI, Manitowoc, and NAFEM 

commented that a three year compliance 

period is not adequate for this 

rulemaking and that DOE should extend 

the compliance period to allow time for 

manufacturers to obtain new 

components. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 18; NAFEM, No. 

82 at pg. 2–3; Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 

2 –3) NAFEM and AHRI commented 

that DOE should extend the compliance 

period by two years. (AHRI, No. 93 at 

p. 2; NAFEM, No. 82 at pg. 2–3) AHRI 

and Manitowoc noted that there is a 

potential for Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Significant New 

Alternatives Policy (SNAP) regulations 

to force further product redesign and 

extending the compliance period would 

provide relief should refrigerant 

regulatory issues not be finalized in 

time.21 (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 2; 

Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3) Emerson 

urged DOE to wait until after EPA 

finalizes its decision on refrigerants 

before starting the 3-year period given to 

manufacturers to meet the new 

standards so manufacturers can redesign for both energy efficiency and 

low global warming potential (GWP) 

refrigerants in one design cycle. 

(Emerson, No. 122, p. 1) 

NAFEM stated that manufacturers 

will only be able to achieve energy 

efficiency gains up to the level of NOPR 

TSL 1 within the five-year compliance 

timeline and that the current proposal 

will result in the unavailability of ice 

makers with the characteristics, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

generally available in the U.S. (NAFEM, 

No. 82 at p. 2) NAFEM’s comment 

mentions a five-year compliance 

timeline, although DOE proposed a 

three-year timeline in the NOPR. 79 FR 

at 14949 (March 17, 2014). 

Another concern amongst 

manufacturers was the belief that the 

proposed standard levels were based on 

technology that was currently not 

available. At the April 2014 NOPR 

public meeting, Ice-O-Matic commented 

that they did not believe that the 

technology exists to achieve the 

proposed standards in the allotted time 

frame. (Ice-O-Matic, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 33) 

Joint Commenters noted that, in 

balancing the stringency of the 

standards with the compliance dates 

and manufacturer impacts, they believe 

that the stringency of the standard is 

more important for national energy 

savings than the compliance dates. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 4) 

In response to the assertion that 

DOE’s standard levels were not based 

upon currently available technologies, 

DOE maintains that all technology 

options and equipment configurations 

included in its NOPR reflect 

technologies currently in use in 

automatic commercial ice makers. For 

example, DOE considered use only of 

compressors that are currently 

commercially available and which 

manufacturers have indicated are 

acceptable for use in ice makers in 

confidential discussions with DOE’s 

contractor. Moreover, the proposed 

standard levels are exceeded by the 

ratings of some products that are 

currently commercially available. 

However, the standard levels 

established in this final rule are 

significantly less stringent than the 

standard levels proposed in the NOPR, 

and a greater percentage of currentlyavailable products already meet these 

efficiency levels. DOE expects that this 

reduction in stringency and the reduced 

number of products requiring redesign 

means that the time required for 

manufacturers to achieve compliance 

would be reduced. 

In response to the NODA, Scotsman, 

Manitowoc, NAFEM, and Ice-O-Matic 

all requested that the effective date for 

the new efficiency standard for ACIMs 

be extended to 5 years after the 

publication of the final rule. (Scotsman, 

No. 125 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 126 at 

p. 3; NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 2; Ice-OMatic, No. 121 at p. 1) NAFEM stated 

that even with the more realistic 

assumptions presented in the NODA, 

manufactures still require an extended 

timeline to obtain new components 

needed to meet higher efficiency levels. 

In response to the request that DOE 

extend the compliance date period for 

automatic commercial ice makers 

beyond the 3 years specified by the 

NOPR, DOE notes that EPCA requires 

that the amended standards established 

in this rulemaking must apply to 

equipment that is manufactured on or 

after 3 years after the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register unless 

DOE determines, by rule, that a 3-year 

period is inadequate, in which case DOE 

may extend the compliance date for that 

standard by an additional 2 years. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(C)) DOE believes that 

the modifications to the analysis, 

relative to the NOPR, it announced in 

the NODA and made to the final rule 

will reduce the burden on 

manufacturers to meet requirements 

established by this rule, because the 

standard levels are less stringent and 

fewer ice maker models will require 

redesign to meet the new standard. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4662 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

22EPA on July 9, 2014 proposed new alternative 

refrigerants for several applications, but not ACIMs. 

79 FR 38811. EPA also, on August 6, 2014, 

proposed delisting of refrigerants for several 

applications, but not ACIMs. 79 FR 46126 (Aug. 6, 

2014). The notice did indicate that EPA is 

considering whether to delist use of R–404A for 

ACIMs, but did not propose such action. 79 FR at 

46149. 

3-year period is adequate and is not 

extending the compliance date for 

ACIMs. 

3. Negotiated Rulemaking 

Stakeholders AHRI, Hoshizaki, 

Manitowoc, and the North American 

Association of Food Equipment 

Manufactures (NAFEM) both suggested 

that DOE use a negotiated rulemaking to 

develop ACIM standards. (AHRI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 15–16; 

AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

128 at p. 1; Hoshizaki, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 38–39; 

Hoshizaki, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 124 at p. 3; Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 344– 

345; NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 2; NAFEM, 

No. 123 at p. 1) NAFEM stated that a 

negotiated rulemaking would ensure the 

level of enhanced dialogue needed for 

DOE to effectively assess the rule’s 

impact on end-users. (NAFEM, No. 82 at 

p. 2) AHRI stated that there are 

significant issues in the analysis, that 

the current direction of this rulemaking 

will place significant burden on the 

industry, and that the completion of this 

rulemaking under the current process 

will be difficult, expensive, and not 

timely. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 15–16) 

In response to the manufacturers’ 

suggestion to use a negotiated 

rulemaking to develop ACIM standards, 

DOE notes that this issue was raised 

before the Appliance Standards and 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (ASRAC) on June 6, 2014 

and the ASRAC membership declined to 

establish a working group to negotiate a 

final rule for ACIM energy conservation 

standards. Several ASRAC members 

voiced concern of using ASRAC at such 

a late stage in the rulemaking when it 

would be more appropriate to raise 

these concerns in the normal public 

comment process. (See public transcript 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-013-BTNOC-0005-0025) 

4. Refrigerant Regulation 

Manitowoc noted that the EPA has 

proposed delisting R–404A, the 

refrigerant used in nearly all currently 

available ice makers, for commercial 

refrigeration applications. Manitowoc 

stated that while commercial ice makers 

are not within the current scope for the 

SNAP NOPR, it seems likely that ice 

makers could be affected by a 

subsequent rulemaking. (Manitowoc, 

No. 126 at p. 3) Several interested 

parties, including AHRI, NAFEM, 

Hoshizaki, Manitowoc, and Howe 

requested that DOE consider the 

hardships associated with refrigerant 

choice uncertainty caused by potential 

future EPA SNAP regulations in the 

analysis (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 16–18; NAFEM, 

No. 82 at p. 7; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 

6–7; Howe, No. 88 at p. 2–3; Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

286–287; Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3) 

Manitowoc suggested that DOE do a 

sensitivity analysis that examines what 

would happen to life-cycle costs, etc. if 

manufacturers had to re-engineer twice. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 286–287) 

AHRI commented that the potential 

for SNAP rulemakings to require a 

refrigerant change will necessitate major 

redesigns just to maintain current 

efficiency levels. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 16–18) 

Manitowoc and Hoshizaki also 

expressed concern regarding the 

redesign work that would be needed if 

the EPA were to ban R–404A. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 286–287; Hoshizaki, No. 86 

at p. 6–7) AHRI added that the burden 

of the potential EPA SNAP rulemaking 

must be taken into account in the 

engineering and life-cycle cost analyses. 

AHRI requested that DOE put a hold on 

the ACIM rulemaking until after the 

next SNAP rollout is completed. (AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

16–18) 

AHRI also commented that the DOE 

should make an effort to look at 

refrigerants because its cost-benefit 

analysis is based solely on a refrigerant 

that may not exist three years from now. 

(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

70 at p. 284–285) AHRI noted that, 

because low-GWP refrigerants also have 

lower heat transfer capability than R– 

404A, coil sizes may need to further 

increase in order to maintain the 

performance with other refrigerants, 

which could be infeasible if the 

proposed standards are already calling 

for an increased coil size for units using 

R–404A. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 293–294) 

Scotsman and Hoshizaki suggested 

that DOE and EPA collaborate so that 

both the energy conservation 

rulemaking and the SNAP rulemaking 

don’t promulgate standards that are 

unduly burdensome. (Scotsman, No. 

125 at p. 2; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 6– 

7) 

Manitowoc stated that even if the EPA 

takes no action on ice makers in the 

next 3 years, the component supplier 

industry (compressors, expansion 

valves, heat exchangers, etc.) will focus 

its efforts on supporting the transition to 

hydrocarbons, HFO blends, and other 

acceptable refrigerants for the 

refrigeration industry as the volume of 

display case, reach-in, walk-in, and 

vending is significantly larger than that 

for commercial ice machines. 

(Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3) 

ASAP commented that the way that 

DOE is dealing with the refrigerants 

issue is consistent with how it has dealt 

with it in all other rulemakings. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

52–53) Joint Commenters commented 

that DOE’s approach of conducting their 

analysis based on the most commonlyused refrigerants today is appropriate 

and that it does not appear that a phaseout of R–404A would negatively impact 

ice maker efficiency, given the fact that 

propane, DR–33, and N–40 all have 

lower GWP and similar efficiency 

compared to R–404A. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 87 at p. 4) NEEA 

expressed their support for DOE’s 

current refrigerant-neutral position. 

(NEEA, No. 91 at p. 2) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

notes that the EPA SNAP NOPR 

mentioned by Manitowoc (see 79 FR 

46149 (Aug. 6, 2014)) did not propose 

to delist the use of R–404A for ACIMs. 

EPA proposed to delist R–404A for 

certain retail food refrigeration 

applications including condensing 

units. However, ACIMs do not qualify as 

retail food refrigeration equipment and 

therefore will not be subject to SNAP 

regulations that pertain to retail 

refrigeration applications. Further, 

alternate refrigerants have not been 

proposed by the SNAP program for use 

in ACIMs.22 DOE recognizes that the 

engineering analysis is based on the use 

of R–404A, the most commonly used 

refrigerant in ACIMs, and that a 

restriction of R–404A in ACIMs would 

have impacts on the design options 

selected in the engineering analysis. 

However, DOE cannot speculate on the 

outcome of a rulemaking in progress 

and can only consider in its 

rulemakings rules that are currently in 

effect. Therefore, DOE has not included 

possible outcomes of a potential EPA 

SNAP rulemaking in the engineering or 

LCC analysis. This position is consistent 

with past DOE rulings, such as in the 

2011 direct final rule for room air 

conditioners. 76 FR 22454 (April 21, 

2011). DOE is aware of stakeholder 

concerns that EPA may broaden the uses 

for which R–404A is phased out at some 

point in the future. DOE is confident 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4663 

23See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/

subsgwps.html. 

that there will be an adequate supply of 

R–404A for compliance with the 

standards being finalized in today’s 

rule, however, consistent with EO 

13563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, DOE will prioritize 

its review of the potential effects of any 

future phase-out of the refrigerant R– 

404A (should there be one) on the 

efficiency standards set by this 

rulemaking. 

DOE does not have reason to believe 

that EPA’s SNAP proposal to delist R– 

404A for commercial refrigeration 

applications will have a deleterious 

impact on the availability of 

components for ACIMs. Although the 

component supplier industry may focus 

efforts on supporting the transition to 

alternative refrigerants for the 

commercial refrigeration industry as 

suggested by Manitowoc, the design 

options included in this final rule are 

based on existing component 

technology and do not assume an 

advancement in such components. 

Therefore, DOE believes that those 

components currently on the market 

will remain available for use by ACIM 

manufactures. DOE wishes to clarify 

that it will continue to consider ACIM 

models meeting the definition of 

automatic commercial ice makers to be 

part of their applicable covered 

equipment class, regardless of the 

refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a 

manufacturer believes that its design is 

subjected to undue hardship by 

regulations, the manufacturer may 

petition DOE’s Office of Hearing and 

Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or 

exemption from the standard pursuant 

to OHA’s authority under section 504 of 

the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 

7194), as implemented at subpart B of 

10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the 

authority to grant such relief on a caseby-case basis if it determines that a 

manufacturer has demonstrated that 

meeting the standard would cause 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens. 

DOE investigated ice makers which it 

believes use refrigerants other than R– 

404A, specifically refrigerants HFC– 

134a and R–410A. While these 

refrigerants are also HFCs, their GWP is 

significantly lower than that of R– 

404A,23 and for this reason may be less 

likely to be delisted for use in ice 

makers under future SNAP rule 

revisions. Based on the available 

information, DOE concludes that 

compliance challenges for these 

alternative refrigerants are not greater 

than for R–404A. Table IV.1 below 

presents performance data of 

alternative-refrigerant ice makers and 

compares their energy use to the energy 

use associated with TSL3 for their 

equipment class and capacity. Thirteen 

of these 31 ice makers meet the TSL3 

level. 

TABLE IV.1—ICE MAKERS USING ALTERNATIVE REFRIGERANTS

Refrigerant Equipment class 

Harvest 

capacity rate 

(lb ice/24 hr) 

Energy use 

(kWh/100 lb) 

Energy use 

percent below 

baseline 

TSL3 Energy 

use 

(kWh/100 lb) 

HFC–134a ..................... SCU–A–Small–B ................................................. 121 8.4 31.8 9.4 

R–410A .......................... IMH–W–Small–B * ............................................... 302 6.1 0.6 5.2 

R–410A .......................... IMH–W–Small–B ................................................. 305 5.2 15.1 5.2 

R–410A .......................... IMH–W–Small–B ................................................. 310 5.2 14.7 5.2 

R–410A .......................... IMH–W–Small–B ................................................. 428 4.7 13.7 5.0 

R–410A .......................... IMH–W–Small–B ................................................. 430 4.7 13.5 5.0 

R–410A .......................... IMH–W–Small–B ................................................. 494 5 1.6 4.9 

R–410A .......................... IMH–W–Med–B ................................................... 510 5 0.4 4.8 

R–410A .......................... IMH–W–Med–B * ................................................. 730 4.75 0.6 4.4 

R–410A .......................... IMH–W–Med–B * ................................................. 1,200 4.1 3.8 4.1 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Small–B .................................................. 222 7.5 10.2 7.3 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Small–B .................................................. 300 6.2 19.3 6.3 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Small–B .................................................. 305 6.8 11.0 6.3 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Small–B .................................................. 388 6 13.3 6.1 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Large–B .................................................. 485 6 5.6 5.8 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Large–B .................................................. 714 6.1 0.1 5.3 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Large–B .................................................. 230 7.5 9.4 6.5 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Large–B .................................................. 320 6.2 17.4 6.3 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Large–B .................................................. 310 6.8 10.5 6.3 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Large–B .................................................. 405 5.8 14.4 6.0 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Large–B .................................................. 538 6 4.7 5.7 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Large–B .................................................. 714 6.1 0.1 5.3 

R–410A .......................... IMH–A–Large–B * ................................................ 1,100 5.3 6.7 4.9 

R–410A .......................... RCU–NRC–Small–B ............................................ 724 5.4 11.5 5.5 

R–410A .......................... RCU–NRC–Small–B ............................................ 720 5.4 8.8 5.5 

R–410A .......................... RCU–NRC–Small–B * .......................................... 1,200 5 2.0 4.6 

* Two ice makers with these ratings, one each for full-cube and half-cube ice. 

5. Data Availability 

AHRI, PGE/SDG&E, and NAFEM 

requested that DOE make data available 

for stakeholder review. (AHRI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 349; 

PG&E and SDG&E, No. 89 at p. 3; 

NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 2) Specifically, 

AHRI requested that DOE’s test results 

be made available to manufacturers for 

review. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 349) NAFEM 

suggested that DOE identify the model 

and serial number of components used 

in the engineering analysis in order to 

enhance transparency. (NAFEM, No. 82 

at p. 2) 

AHRI and Danfoss both suggested that 

DOE facilitate more informal dialog to 

discuss data and assumptions for the 

department to receive feedback. (AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

342–343; Danfoss, No. 72 at p. 1–2) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4664 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Danfoss recommended that DOE publish 

the list of all persons, companies and 

organizations they have contacted in 

regards to this rulemaking. (Danfoss, No. 

72 at p. 1–2) 

In response to stakeholders, DOE held 

a public meeting on June 19 to provide 

stakeholders with more information 

about the energy modeling used in 

developing the NOPR analysis. 79 FR 

33877 (June 13, 2014). In addition, DOE 

published a NODA presenting analyses 

revised based on stakeholder comments 

and additional research conducted after 

the NOPR. 79 FR 54215 (Sept. 11, 2014). 

DOE’s contractor also engaged in 

additional discussions with 

manufacturers under non-disclosure 

agreements after publication of the 

NOPR in order to collect additional 

information relevant to the analyses. 

DOE generally does not publish test data 

to avoid revealing information about 

product performance that may be 

considered trade secrets. Also for this 

reason, DOE does not intend to publish 

the model and serial number of 

equipment or components obtained, 

tested, and reverse-engineered during 

the analysis. DOE also does not reveal 

the identity of companies and 

organizations from which its contractor 

has collected information under nondisclosure agreement. 

In their written response to the 

NODA, AHRI expressed their belief that 

DOE’s current process in this 

rulemaking is not compliant with the 

objective of using transparent and 

robust analytical methods producing 

results that can be explained and 

reproduced, as required by DOE’s 

process rule and guidelines. AHRI 

expressed their belief that it has been 

difficult to analyze and provide 

feedback on this rulemaking as 

important portions such as the energy 

model have not been disclosed to the 

public. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 6–8) 

AHRI and NAFEM requested that 

DOE publically release the FREEZE 

model for stakeholder review. NAFEM 

and AHRI stated that DOE was unable 

to show that the FREEZE model 

functioned and was unable to produce 

accurate results at the June 2014 public 

meeting. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 2–3; 

NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 1–2) AHRI stated 

that given the results of the limited runs 

model at the June 19th meeting, they 

believe that there are serious concerns 

about the quality and reproducibility of 

the information that is not in 

accordance with the applicable 

guidelines for ensuring and maximizing 

the quality, objectivity, utility and 

integrity of information disseminated to 

the public by the Department of Energy. 

AHRI added that without public release 

of the model, DOE cannot demonstrate 

sufficient transparency about the data 

and methods such that an independent 

reanalysis can be undertaken by a 

qualified member of the public. AHRI 

noted that if DOE had compelling 

interests that prohibit public access to 

the model, DOE must identify those 

interests and describe and document the 

rigorous checks it has undertaken to 

ensure reproducibility. (AHRI, No. 128 

at p. 6–8) 

DOE notes that stakeholders have 

placed great emphasis on the FREEZE 

model in their responses, but this model 

is only part of the analysis. Moreover, 

DOE has published output of the 

engineering analysis on which 

stakeholders have had the opportunity 

to comment, for both the NOPR and 

NODA phases. As part of the final rule 

documentation, DOE presents the 

revised engineering analysis output. 

Over the course of the rulemaking, 

DOE has attained additional information 

regarding the efficiency improvements 

associated with different design options, 

through public comments as well as 

through confidential information 

exchange between DOE’s contractor and 

manufacturers. As a result the efforts 

made by all parties in preparing and 

providing this additional information, 

the projections of efficiency 

improvements associated with the 

design options considered in the 

analysis are based more on test data 

than theoretical analysis. For example, 

in the NODA and final rule analysis, the 

energy use reduction in a batch ice 

maker as a result of compressor EER 

improvement is based on test data 

provided both in written comments and 

through confidential information 

exchange. 

In the NOPR and the NODA phases, 

DOE has published engineering 

spreadsheets that show projected energy 

savings associated with specific design 

options for the analyses of energy use 

for the ice maker models representing 

most of the ice maker equipment 

classes. These results document the 

analysis and have allowed stakeholders 

to review details of the analysis as a 

check on accuracy. DOE’s calibration of 

the energy use analysis results at the 

highest commercially-available 

efficiency levels, described in section 

IV.D.4.b, provides a check of the 

analysis, specifically ensuring that the 

group of design options required to 

attain these highest available efficiency 

levels (as predicted by the analysis) is 

consistent with actual equipment. The 

section presents examples of maximum 

available commercial units against 

which the energy use calculations are 

calibrated for the highest analyzed 

efficiency levels not using permanent 

magnet motors and drain water heat 

exchangers. DOE conducted calibration 

at this efficiency level because these 

design options are not generally used in 

commercially available units, thus 

preventing calibration with 

commercialized units at higher 

efficiency levels. These calibration 

comparisons, which are discussed in 

section IV.D.4.b and in Chapter 5 of the 

TSD, show (a) that the efficiency levels 

attainable without use of permanent 

magnet motors and drain water heat 

exchangers have not been overestimated 

by the analysis, and (b) the design 

options that are projected to be required 

to attain these maximum available 

efficiency levels are consistent with or 

conservative (more costly) as compared 

with the design options used in 

maximum-available ice makers that are 

available for purchase. 

DOE is not at liberty to release the 

FREEZE energy model to the public 

because it does not own the modeling 

tool. 

AHRI stated that DOE did not 

publically provide the information 

necessary for affected parties to have 

adequate notice and ability to comment 

on the results of the public meeting. 

AHRI stated that DOE failed to 

publically state a timeframe for 

collecting the data it has requested. 

AHRI added that the public statement 

issued after the public meeting did not 

indicate to whom the data should be 

sent. AHRI stated their belief that 

without the clarity of a defined 

comment period, or the knowledge of 

the next steps in the process DOE is not 

following its own process rule and the 

notice and comment requirements for 

federal agency rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 

128 at p. 6–8) 

In response to AHRI’s comment, DOE 

expressed willingness during the NOPR 

public meeting, subject to potential legal 

restrictions, to allow additional 

information exchange by stakeholders 

with DOE’s contractor under nondisclosure agreement. DOE also 

expressed willingness to possibly 

publish a NODA which would allow 

stakeholders additional opportunity to 

comment. (DOE, NOPR Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at pp. 341–344) In 

general, any information exchange 

regarding a rulemaking is strictly 

limited after publication of a NOPR, in 

order to limit the potential for undue 

influence on the process from any 

particular interested party. DOE allowed 

additional information exchange with 

stakeholders and published a NODA to 

allow additional opportunity for input. 

79 FR 54215 (Sept. 11, 2014). Thus, 

contrary to AHRI’s comment, with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4665 

additional public meeting and with the 

issuance of the NODA, stakeholders 

have had several opportunities to 

provide input beyond the opportunities 

normally provided for an energy 

conservation standard rulemaking. 

6. Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

NAFEM stated that DOE should not 

issue a final rule because the revisions 

in the NODA did not address each issue 

raised in response to the NOPR analysis. 

(NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 1) NAFEM and 

AHRI both requested that the 

department issue a supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) to 

allow manufacturers and end users 

enough time to address the substantial 

changes in the analysis made between 

the NOPR and NODA phases. (NAFEM, 

No. 123 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 128 at p. 2) 

NAFEM stated that there are many 

unknowns regarding the changes made 

in the NODA analysis and noted that 

DOE did not identify a technologically 

feasible and economically justified 

standard level. NAFEM also requested 

that DOE release the model used to 

determine TSL standards. (NAFEM, No. 

123 at p. 1) 

In response to AHRI and NAFEM, 

DOE notes that the modifications made 

to the analyses in the NODA were based 

on stakeholder participation, and each 

issue raised in response to the NOPR 

and NODA have been addressed in this 

final rule. The objective of the NODA 

was to enable stakeholders to 

understand the changes made in the 

basic analyses as a result of input 

received during the NOPR phase, and 

DOE believes that was accomplished. 

Therefore, DOE does not believe that an 

SNOPR is necessary for this rulemaking. 

In response to NAFEM’s request for 

DOE to release the model used to 

determine the TSL standard, DOE 

assumes that this refers to the FREEZE 

model, which is discussed in section 

IV.A.5. DOE is not at liberty to release 

the FREEZE energy model to the public 

because it does not own the modeling 

tool. Regarding NAFEM’s comment 

concerning identification of a 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified standard level, 

DOE notes that the NODA did not 

propose a standard level. Rather the 

NODA’s purpose was to provide 

stakeholders the opportunity to 

comment on revisions in DOE’s 

analysis. 

7. Rulemaking Structure Comments 

A Policy Analyst at the George 

Washington University Regulatory 

Studies Center commented on basic 

underpinnings of the DOE energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

process. Policy Analyst commented that 

DOE does not explain why 

sophisticated, profit-motivated 

purchasers of ACIMs would suffer from 

informational deficits or cognitive 

biases that would cause them to 

purchase products with high lifetime 

costs without demanding higher-price, 

higher-efficiency products. (Policy 

Analyst, No. 75 at p. 5) 

Policy Analyst indicated that two of 

the three problems identified by DOE, 

lack of access to information and 

information asymmetry, are not 

addressed by the rule, indicating that 

DOE’s rule is flawed. (Policy Analyst, 

No. 75 at p. 6) Policy Analyst added that 

only one of the problems identified by 

DOE is addressed by any of the metrics 

stated in the proposed rule: 

Internalizing the externality of 

greenhouse gas emissions. (Policy 

Analyst, No. 75 at p. 7) 

Policy Analyst suggested that the 

proposed rule should include DOE’s 

plans for how it will gather information 

to assess the success of the rule and 

whether its assumptions were accurate. 

(Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 8) Policy 

Analyst added that DOE should include 

a timeframe for retrospective review in 

its final rule. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at 

p. 8) 

Policy Analyst stated that DOE should 

pay attention to the linkages between 

the rule and the measured outcomes in 

order to increase its awareness of 

mediating factors that may have 

accomplished or undermined the stated 

metrics absent the rule. (Policy Analyst, 

No. 75 at p. 8) 

In response, DOE believes there are 

two main reasons that purchasers of 

ACIM equipment would lack complete 

information, causing them to, in Policy 

Analyst’s words, ‘‘purchase products 

with high lifetime costs without 

demanding higher-price, higherefficiency products.’’ The first reason is 

the time involved in collection and 

processing of information and the 

second is that the available information 

is incomplete. ACIM purchasers have 

access only to information that is 

readily available, and would not have 

ready access to information about 

additional efficiency options that could 

be made available to the market. The 

information that is available is 

dispersed in many sources, and the cost 

of querying all information sources 

takes the form of time taken away from 

the primary business of the purchaser, 

whether running a hotel or provision of 

medical care. By virtue of simply 

undertaking the energy conservation 

standard rulemaking, DOE provides 

significant information to all who are 

interested via the analyses undertaken 

by the rulemaking. 

As the energy conservation standard 

rulemaking has proceeded from the 

initial framework phase through to the 

final rule phase, DOE has solicited 

information, purchased, examined and 

tested actual ACIM products, and 

performed numerous analyses to ensure 

assumptions are as accurate as possible. 

Once a rule is finalized, DOE continues 

collecting information as well as 

interacting with the industry, and such 

activities will enable DOE to measure 

whether the rule is achieving its 

intended results—namely increasing the 

efficiency of automatic commercial ice 

makers. 

DOE will undertake subsequent 

analyses of ACIM equipment in order to 

meet legislative requirements for 

reviewing the standard by a date no 

later than 5 years after the effective date 

of new and amended standards 

established by this rulemaking. DOE 

follows a standard process in energy 

conservation standards rulemakings, 

and believes as such, that establishing 

plans within this final rule for gathering 

information for the next proceeding is 

unnecessary. 

B. Market and Technology Assessment 

When beginning an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE develops information that provides 

an overall picture of the market for the 

equipment concerned, including the 

purpose of the equipment, the industry 

structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both quantitative 

and qualitative assessments based 

primarily on publicly available 

information (e.g., manufacturer 

specification sheets, industry 

publications) and data submitted by 

manufacturers, trade associations, and 

other stakeholders. The subjects 

addressed in the market and technology 

assessment for this rulemaking include: 

(1) Quantities and types of equipment 

sold and offered for sale; (2) retail 

market trends; (3) equipment covered by 

the rulemaking; (4) equipment classes; 

(5) manufacturers; (6) regulatory 

requirements and non-regulatory 

programs (such as rebate programs and 

tax credits); and (7) technologies that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

the equipment under examination. DOE 

researched manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers and made a 

particular effort to identify and 

characterize small business 

manufacturers. See chapter 3 of the final 

rule TSD for further discussion of the 

market and technology assessment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4666 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1. Equipment Classes 

In evaluating and establishing energy 

conservation standards, DOE generally 

divides covered equipment into classes 

by the type of energy used, or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

feature that justifies a different standard 

for equipment having such a feature. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q) and 6316(a)) In deciding 

whether a feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE considers factors such as 

the utility of the feature to users. DOE 

normally establishes different energy 

conservation standards for different 

equipment classes based on these 

criteria. 

Automatic commercial ice makers are 

divided into equipment classes based on 

physical characteristics that affect 

commercial application, equipment 

utility, and equipment efficiency. These 

equipment classes are based on the 

following criteria: 

• Ice-making process 

Æ ‘‘Batch’’ icemakers that operate on 

a cyclical basis, alternating between 

periods of ice production and ice 

harvesting 

Æ ‘‘Continuous’’ icemakers that can 

produce and harvest ice 

simultaneously 

• Equipment configuration 

Æ Ice-making head (a single-package 

ice-making assembly that does not 

include an ice storage bin) 

Æ Remote condensing (an ice maker 

consisting of an ice-making head in 

which the ice is produced—but also 

without an ice storage bin—and a 

separate condenser assembly that 

can be remotely installed,) 

• With remote compressor 

(compressor packaged with the 

condenser) 

• Without remote compressor 

(compressor packaged with the 

evaporator in the ice-making head) 

Æ Self-contained (with storage bin 

included) 

• Condenser cooling 

Æ Air-cooled 

Æ Water-cooled 

• Capacity range 

Table IV.2 shows the 25 automatic 

commercial ice maker equipment 

classes that DOE used for its analysis in 

this rulemaking. These equipment 

classes were derived from existing DOE 

standards and commercially available 

products. The final rule adjusts these 

capacity ranges, based on this analysis, 

as a result of setting appropriate energy 

use standards across the overall capacity 

range (50 to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours) for 

a given type of equipment, such as all 

batch air-cooled ice-making head units. 

TABLE IV.2—FINAL RULE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES USED FOR ANALYSIS

Type of ice maker Equipment type Type of 

condenser cooling 

Harvest capacity rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

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

≥500 and <1,436 

≥1,436 and <4,000 

Air ........................................ ≥50 and <450 

≥450 and <4,000 

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

≥1,000 and <4,000 

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

≥934 and <4,000 

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

≥200 and <4,000 

Air ........................................ ≥50 and <175 

≥175 and <4,000 

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

≥900 and <4,000 

Air ........................................ ≥50 and <700 

≥700 and <4,000 

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

≥850 and <4,000 

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

≥850 and <4,000 

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

≥900 and <4,000 

Air ........................................ ≥50 and <700 

≥700 and <4,000 

Batch type and continuous type ice 

makers are distinguished by the 

mechanics of their respective icemaking processes. Continuous type ice 

makers are so named because they 

simultaneously produce and harvest ice 

in one continuous, steady-state process. 

The ice produced in continuous 

processes is called ‘‘flake’’ ice or 

‘‘nugget’’ ice, which can both be a ‘‘soft’’ 

ice with high liquid water content, in 

the range from 10 to 35 percent, but can 

also be subcooled, i.e. be entirely frozen 

and at temperature lower than 32 °F. 

Continuous type ice makers were not 

included in the EPACT 2005 standards 

and therefore were not regulated by 

existing DOE energy conservation 

standards. 

Existing energy conservation 

standards cover batch type ice makers 

that produce ‘‘cube’’ ice, which is 

defined as ice that is fairly uniform, 

hard, solid, usually clear, and generally 

weighs less than two ounces (60 grams) 

per piece, as distinguished from flake, 

crushed, or fragmented ice. 10 CFR 

431.132 Batch ice makers alternate 

between freezing and harvesting periods 

and therefore produce ice in discrete 

batches rather than in a continuous 

process. After the freeze period, hot gas 

is typically redirected from the 

compressor discharge to the evaporator, 

melting the surface of the ice cubes that 

is in contact with the evaporator 

surface, enabling them to be removed 

from the evaporator. The water that is 

left in the sump at the end of the 

icemaking part of the cycle is purged 

(drained from the unit), removing with 

it the impurities that could decrease ice 

clarity form scale (the result of 

dissolved solids in the incoming water 

coming out of solution) on the ice maker 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4667 

surfaces. Consequently, batch type ice 

makers typically have higher potable 

water usage than continuous type ice 

makers. 

After the publication of the 

Framework document, several parties 

commented that machines producing 

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

process with both freeze and harvest 

periods similar to the process used for 

cube ice, should also be regulated. DOE 

notes that tube ice machines of the 

covered capacity range that produce ice 

fitting the definition for cube type ice 

are covered by the current standards, 

whether or not they are referred to as 

cube type ice makers within the 

industry. Nonetheless, DOE has 

addressed the commenters’ suggestions 

by emphasizing that all batch type ice 

machines are within the scope of this 

rulemaking, as long as they fall within 

the covered capacity range of 50 to 

4,000 lb ice/24 hours. This includes 

tube ice machines and other batch type 

ice machines (if any) that produce ice 

that does not fit the definition of cube 

type ice. To help clarify this issue, DOE 

now refers to all batch automatic 

commercial ice makers as ‘‘batch type 

ice makers,’’ regardless of the shape of 

the ice pieces that they produce. 77 FR 

1591 (Jan. 11, 2012). 

During the April 2014 NOPR public 

meeting and in subsequent written 

comments, a number of stakeholders 

addressed issues related to proposed 

equipment classes and the inclusion of 

certain types of equipment in the 

analysis. These topics are discussed in 

this section. 

a. Cabinet Size 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

indicated that it was not proposing to 

create separate equipment classes for 

space-constrained units. DOE requested 

comment on this issue in the 

preliminary analysis phase. Few 

stakeholders commented on whether 

DOE should consider establishing 

equipment classes based on cabinet size. 

Earthjustice supported such an 

approach, while Manitowoc suggested 

that such an approach would be 

complicated. (Earthjustice, Preliminary 

Analysis Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

42 at pp. 90–91; Manitowoc, 

(Manitowoc, Preliminary Analysis 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 42 at p. 

91)) DOE also reviewed size/efficiency 

trends of commercially available ice 

makers and concluded that the data do 

not show a definitive trend suggesting 

specific size limits for space-constrained 

classes. 79 FR 14846, at 14862 (March 

17, 2014). 

In response to the March 2014 NOPR, 

AHRI and NAFEM commented that DOE 

did not conduct analysis for the full 

range of product offerings in the market. 

(AHRI, No. 93 at p. 12–13; NAFEM, No. 

82 at p. 4) AHRI, NAFEM, and 

Manitowoc commented that DOE’s 

analysis did not take into account the 

difficulty associated with increasing 

cabinet volume for 22-inch models (i.e. 

ice makers that are 22 inches wide). 

(AHRI, No. 93 at p. 12–13; Manitowoc, 

No. 92 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 4) 

Manitowoc added that the engineering 

analysis focused on 30-inch cabinets 

and that the design options may not all 

fit within the 22-inch cabinet models. 

(Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 2 and p. 26– 

27) AHRI stated that they had data 

showing that 22-inch units cannot 

accommodate evaporator or condenser 

growth without chassis growth which is 

not possible for these size-restricted 

units. AHRI noted that DOE included 

chassis size increases for some 

equipment classes without taking into 

account in the engineering analysis the 

special case of 22-inch ice makers. 

(AHRI, No. 93 at p. 12–13) NAFEM 

specifically requested that DOE 

differentiate between 22-inch and 30- 

inch IMH–A–Small–B machines, since 

22-inch models cannot achieve 

increases in cabinet volume and 30-inch 

models cannot be substituted for 22- 

inch models. (NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 4) 

Hoshizaki also urged DOE to take 22- 

inch units into special consideration in 

the analysis. (Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 8) 

Manitowoc commented that 22-inch 

air-cooled ice-making heads are growing 

in importance due to the shrinking size 

of restaurant kitchens and that such 

machines cannot grow in height because 

they are already very tall. Manitowoc 

asserted that this product category may 

disappear if efficiency standards require 

significant chassis size growth. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 162–164) 

However, the Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) stated that 

they believe that DOE appropriately 

considered the issues concerning 

increased chassis size, citing DOE’s 

consideration of chassis size increase 

only for three of the twenty-two classes 

analyzed, and the fact that DOE 

considered only increases in height, not 

increases in footprint. (NEEA, No. 91 at 

p. 1–2) 

DOE has maintained its position from 

the NOPR and has not created a new 

equipment class for 22-inch ACIMs. 

However, in response to commenters 

DOE revised the NOPR analysis to 

consider the size restrictions and 

applications of 22-inch wide ice makers 

in its revised analysis. Specifically, DOE 

has developed cost-efficiency curves for 

22-inch width units in the IMH–A– 

Small–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and IMH– 

W–Small–B equipment classes. These 

curves were used in the LCC and NIA 

analyses in the evaluation of efficiency 

levels for classes for which 22-inch 

ACIMs are an important category. The 

LCC and NIA analyses were also revised 

to more carefully consider the impact of 

size restrictions in applications for 30- 

inch units—this is discussed in greater 

detail in section IV.G.2. Ultimately these 

revisions in the analyses led to selection 

of less stringent efficiency levels for 

some of the affected classes. 

b. Large-Capacity Batch Ice Makers 

In the November 2010 Framework 

document for this rulemaking, DOE 

requested comments on whether 

coverage should be expanded from the 

current covered capacity range of 50 to 

2,500 lb ice/24 hours to include ice 

makers producing up to 10,000 lb ice/ 

24 hours. All commenters agreed with 

expanding the harvest capacity 

coverage, and all but one of the 

commenters supported or accepted an 

upper harvest capacity cap of 4,000 lb 

ice/24 hours, which would be consistent 

with the current test procedure, AHRI 

Standard 810–2007. Most commenters 

categorized ice makers with harvest 

capacities above 4,000 lb ice/24 hours as 

industrial rather than commercial. Since 

the publication of the framework 

analysis, DOE revised the test 

procedure, with the final rule published 

in January 2012, to include all batch and 

continuous type ice makers with 

capacities between 50 and 4,000 lb ice/ 

24 hours. 77 FR 1591, 1613–14. In the 

2012 test procedure final rule, DOE 

noted that 4,000 lb ice/24 hours 

represented a reasonable limit for 

commercial ice makers, as larger-sized 

ice makers were generally used for 

industrial applications and testing 

machines up to 4,000 lb was consistent 

with AHRI 810–2007. 77 FR 1591 (Jan. 

11, 2012). To be consistent with the 

majority of the framework comments, 

during the preliminary analysis DOE 

discussed setting the upper harvest 

capacity limit to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours, 

even though there are few ice makers 

currently produced with capacities 

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

hours. 77 FR 3404 (Jan. 24, 2012) DOE 

proposed in the March 2014 NOPR to 

set efficiency standards that include all 

ice makers in this extended capacity 

range and has maintained this position 

in this final rule. 

PG&E and SDG&E commented that 

they support the inclusion of previously 

unregulated equipment classes into the 

scope of this rulemaking, including 

equipment with a capacity range up to 

4,000 lb/24 hour. (PG&E and SDG&E, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4668 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

24Footnote to table at 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1). 

25Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X 

Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 986 (2005) (quoting 

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 

Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 845 (1984)). 

26http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=comm_

ice_machines.pr_crit_comm_ice_machines. 

27The table in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) states 

maximum energy and condenser water usage limits 

for cube type ice machines producing between 50 

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

hours). A footnote to the table states explicitly the 

water limits are for water used in the condenser and 

not potable water used to make ice. 

No. 89 at p. 1) However, Hoshizaki, 

NAFEM, and AHRI commented that 

DOE should refrain from regulating 

products with capacities above 2,500 lb 

ice/24 hours, if there are not enough 

models in this category for DOE to 

directly evaluate. (Hoshizaki, No. 86 at 

p. 9; Hoshizaki, No. 124 at p. 2; AHRI, 

No. 93 at p. 16; NAFEM, No. 123 at 

p. 2) Hoshizaki commented that large 

units perform differently than small 

units in the ways that their compressors 

and condensers interact. Hoshizaki 

requested that DOE not add higher 

levels to the standard extended beyond 

2,000 lb ice/24 hours, but have a flat 

level no more stringent than the 

standard at 2,000 lb ice/24 hours for 

higher capacity equipment. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 124 at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges that there are 

currently few automatic commercial ice 

makers with harvest capacities above 

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

has extended the applicability of its test 

standard, AHRI Standard 810–2007 with 

Addendum 1, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers,’’ to 

ice makers up to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. 

Likewise, DOE extended the 

applicability of its test procedure to the 

same range. 77 FR 1591 (January 11, 

2012). Stakeholders have not cited 

reasons that ice makers with capacities 

greater than 2,000 lb ice/24 hours would 

not be able to achieve the same 

efficiency levels as those producing 

2,000 lb ice/24 hours. Because it is 

possible that batch-type ice makers with 

harvest capacities from 2,500 to 4,000 lb 

ice/24 hours will be manufactured in 

the future, DOE does not find it 

unreasonable to set standards in this 

rulemaking for batch type ice makers 

with harvest capacities in the range up 

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

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

scope of this rulemaking. In response to 

Hoshizaki’s comment, DOE notes that 

each product class has flat levels, i.e. 

efficiency levels that do not vary with 

harvest capacity, beyond 2,000 lb ice/24 

hours. 

c. Regulation of Potable Water Use 

Under EPACT 2005, water used for 

ice—referred to as potable water—was 

not regulated for automatic commercial 

ice makers. 

The amount of potable water used 

varies significantly among batch type 

automatic commercial ice makers (i.e., 

cube, tube, or cracked ice machines). 

Continuous type ice makers (i.e., flake 

and nugget machines) convert 

essentially all of the potable water to 

ice, using roughly 12 gallons of water to 

make 100 lb ice. Batch type ice makers 

use an additional 3 to 38 gallons of 

water in the process of making 100 lb 

ice. This additional water is referred to 

as ‘‘dump or purge water’’ and is used 

to cleanse the evaporator of impurities 

that could interfere with the ice-making 

process. 

As indicated in the preliminary 

analysis and NOPR, DOE is not setting 

potable water limits for automatic 

commercial ice makers. 

The Natural Resource Defense 

Council (NRDC) commented that they 

previously urged the Department to 

propose standards for potable water use 

in batch type ice makers and that failure 

to do so is short-sighted, given the 

increasing severity of drought 

conditions in many states, and may 

cause states to consider their own water 

use standards for ice makers. (NRDC, 

No. 90 at p. 54–1) NRDC urged DOE to 

reconsider its decision not to evaluate 

and set standards for potable water use. 

NRDC noted that EPCA was amended in 

1992 explicitly to include water 

conservation as one of its purposes. 

(NRDC, No. 90 at p. 1) 

PG&E and SDG&E also recommended 

that DOE establish a maximum potable 

water use requirement. PG&E and 

SDG&E also added that in the event that 

DOE maintains that there is ambiguity 

in EPACT 2005 on whether DOE is 

required to regulate water usage and 

uses its discretion not to mandate a 

potable water standard PG&E and 

SDG&E request that DOE comment 

whether states are preempted from 

establishing such a standard. (PG&E and 

SDG&E, No. 89 at p. 4) 

In response to comments from NRDC, 

and PG&E and SDG&E, DOE was not 

given a specific mandate by Congress to 

regulate potable water. EPCA, as 

amended, explicitly gives DOE the 

authority to regulate water use in 

showerheads, faucets, water closets, and 

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

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

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

6295(g)(10)), commercial clothes 

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

(cube) commercial ice makers. (42 

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

commercial ice makers (cube type 

machines), however, Congress explicitly 

set standards in EPACT 2005 at 42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) only for condenser 

water and noted in a footnote to the 

table setting the standards that potable 

water use was not included.24 Congress 

thereby recognized both types of water, 

and did not provide direction to DOE 

with respect to potable water standards. 

This ambiguity gives the DOE 

considerable discretion to regulate or 

not regulate potable water. The U.S. 

Supreme Court has determined that, 

when legislative intent is ambiguous, a 

government agency may use its 

discretion in interpreting the meaning of 

a statute, so long as the interpretation is 

reasonable.25 In the case of ice makers, 

EPACT 2005 is ambiguous on the 

subject of whether DOE must regulate 

water usage for purposes other than 

condenser water usage in cube-making 

machines, and DOE has chosen to use 

its discretion not to mandate a standard 

in this case. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6297(b) and (c), preemption applies 

with respect to covered products and no 

State regulation concerning energy 

efficiency, energy use, or water use of 

such covered product shall be effective 

with respect to such product unless the 

State regulation meets the specified 

criteria under these provisions. 

DOE elected to not set potable water 

limits for automatic commercial ice 

makers in order to allow manufacturers 

to retain flexibility in this aspect of ice 

maker design. The regulation of ice 

maker energy use does in itself make 

high levels of potable water use 

untenable because energy use does 

increase as potable water use increases, 

since the additional water must be 

cooled down, diverting refrigeration 

capacity from the primary objective of 

cooling and freezing the water that will 

be delivered from the machine as ice. 

DOE notes that ENERGY STAR has 

adopted potable water limits for 

ENERGY STAR-compliant ice makers at 

15 gal/100 lb ice for continuous 

equipment classes, 20 gal/100 lb ice for 

IMH and RCU batch classes, and 25 gal/ 

100 lb ice for SCU batch classes.26

d. Regulation of Condenser Water Use 

As previously noted in section II.B.1, 

EPACT 2005 prescribes maximum 

condenser water use levels for watercooled cube type automatic commercial 

ice makers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)) 27 For 

units not currently covered by the 

standard (continuous machines of all 

harvest rates and batch machines with 

harvest rates exceeding 2,500 lb ice/24 

hours), there currently are no limits on 

condenser water use. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4669 

In the preliminary analysis and the 

NOPR, DOE indicated its intent to 

primarily focus the automatic 

commercial ice maker rulemaking on 

energy use. DOE also noted that DOE is 

not bound by EPCA to comprehensively 

evaluate and propose reductions in the 

maximum condenser water 

consumption levels, and likewise has 

the option to allow increases in 

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

efficiency. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE 

stated that EPCA’s anti-backsliding 

provision in section 325(o)(1), which 

lists specific products for which DOE is 

forbidden from prescribing amended 

standards that increase the maximum 

allowable water use, does not include 

ice makers. However in response to the 

preliminary analysis, Earthjustice 

asserted that DOE lacks the authority to 

relax condenser water limits for watercooled ice makers. Earthjustice argued 

that the failure of section 325(o)(1) to 

specifically call out ice maker 

condenser water use as a metric that is 

subject to the statute’s prohibition 

against the relaxation of a standard is 

not determinative. On the contrary, 

Earthjustice maintained that the plain 

language of EPCA shows that Congress 

intended to apply the anti-backsliding 

provision to ice makers. Earthjustice 

commented that section 342(d)(4) 

requires DOE to adopt standards for 

ice-makers ‘‘at the maximum level that 

is technically (DOE interprets the 

comment to mean technologically) 

feasible and economically justified, as 

provided in [section 325(o) and (p)].’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(4)) Earthjustice stated 

that, by referencing all of section 325(o), 

the statute pulls in each of the distinct 

provisions of that subsection, including, 

among other things, the anti-backsliding 

provision, the statutory factors 

governing economic justification, and 

the prohibition on adopting a standard 

that eliminates certain performance 

characteristics. By applying all of 

section 325(o) to ice-makers, section 

342(d)(4) had already made the 

anti-backsliding provision applicable to 

condenser water use, according to 

Earthjustice. Finally, Earthjustice stated 

that even if DOE concludes that the 

plain language of EPCA is not clear on 

this point, the only reasonable 

interpretation is that Congress did not 

intend to grant DOE the authority to 

relax the condenser water use standards 

for ice makers. Earthjustice added that 

the anti-backsliding provision is one of 

EPCA’s most powerful tools to improve 

the energy and water efficiency of 

appliances and commercial equipment, 

and Congress would presumably speak 

clearly if it intended to withhold its 

application to a specific product. 

(Earthjustice, No. 47 at pp. 4–5) 

In the NOPR DOE maintained that the 

42 U.S.C. Sec. 6295(o)(1) antibacksliding provisions apply to water in 

only a limited set of residential 

appliances and fixtures. Therefore, an 

increase in condenser water use would 

not be considered backsliding under the 

statute. Nevertheless, the DOE did not 

include increases in condenser water 

use as a technology option for the 

NOPR, NODA, and final rule. 

In response to the NOPR, NRDC stated 

that they disagree that DOE may 

lawfully relax water use standards. 

NRDC added that even if DOE were 

correct in stating that EPCA’s antibacksliding provision does not apply, as 

explored in EarthJustice’s comment, 

DOE cannot relax the water efficiency 

levels set by Congress itself. (NRDC, No. 

90 at p. 1) 

In this rule, DOE is not revising its 

NOPR position regarding the 

application of anti-backsliding to ACIM 

condenser water use. Nevertheless, DOE 

did not consider design options that 

would represent increase in condenser 

water use in its final rule analysis. 

e. Continuous Models 

The EPACT 2005 amendments to 

EPCA did not set standards for 

continuous type ice makers. Pursuant to 

EPCA, DOE is required to set new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

for automatic commercial ice makers to: 

(1) Achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified; and (2) result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

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

6313(d)(4)) 

Hoshizaki stated that due to their 

small market share, continuous models 

should be considered separately from 

batch machines. (Hoshizaki, No, 124 at 

p. 1) 

DOE notes that it has conducted 

analysis for continuous models as part 

of separate equipment classes than 

batch type models and has set different 

energy standards for them. 

f. Gourmet Ice Machines 

AHRI stated that this rulemaking has 

ignored the niche market of gourmet ice 

cubes. AHRI stated that gourmet ice 

cubes are two to three times larger than 

standard ice cubes. They are also harder 

and denser than conventional machinemade ice and require more energy to 

produce. AHRI noted that this issue 

impacts small business manufacturers. 

(AHRI, No. 128 at p. 5) 

In response to AHRI’s comment 

regarding gourmet ice makers, DOE has 

not conducted separate analysis for such 

equipment. DOE has, however, 

considered small business impacts, as 

discussed in section IV.J.3.f. DOE notes 

that the ACIM rulemaking has provided 

stakeholders many opportunities to 

provide comment on the issues that 

would be important to consider in the 

analysis, including potential equipment 

classes associated with different types of 

ice, whether different types of ice 

provide specific utility that would be 

the basis of considering separate 

equipment classes, and any other issues 

associated with such ice that might 

affect the analysis. DOE does not have 

nor did it receive in response to requests 

for comments sufficient specific 

information to evaluate whether larger 

ice has specific consumer utility, nor to 

allow separate evaluation for such 

equipment of costs and benefits 

associated with achieving the efficiency 

levels considered in the rulemaking. In 

the absence of information, DOE cannot 

conclude that this type of ice has unique 

consumer utility justifying 

consideration of separate equipment 

classes. DOE notes that manufacturers of 

this equipment have the option seeking 

exception relief pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 

7194 from DOE’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals. 

2. Technology Assessment 

As part of the market and technology 

assessment, DOE developed a 

comprehensive list of technologies to 

improve the energy efficiency of 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

shown in Table IV.3. Chapter 3 of the 

final rule TSD contains a detailed 

description of each technology that DOE 

identified. DOE only considered in its 

analysis technologies that would impact 

the efficiency rating of equipment as 

tested under the DOE test procedure. 

The technologies identified by DOE 

were carried through to the screening 

analysis, which is discussed in section 

IV.C. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4670 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

The section below addresses the 

potential consideration of another 

technology option. 

a. Alternative Refrigerants 

The Environmental Investigation 

Agency (EIA Global) urged DOE to 

include hydrocarbon refrigerants as an 

ACIM technology option. EIA Global 

expressed their concern that DOE’s 

analysis will be incomplete without the 

inclusion of hydrocarbon refrigerants 

and that the high global warming 

potential (GWP) of current ACIM 

refrigerants will further damage the 

stability of the climate, thus offsetting 

the efficiency gains associated with 

standards. (EIA Global, No. 80 at p. 1) 

EIA Global commented that it is likely 

that EPA will include hydrocarbons as 

acceptable ACIM refrigerants in the near 

future and urged DOE to bring a SNAP 

petition to do so. EIA Global added that 

accepting hydrocarbons for use in 

ACIMs with charge sizes of 150g or less 

is highly likely and that according to a 

United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP) report, such 

refrigerants have lower viscosity, 

resulting in improved cooling efficiency 

and reducing energy consumption by 18 

percent. (EIA Global, No. 80 at p. 2) EIA 

Global noted that DOE should set 

standards that anticipate future 

alternatives, rather than being limited to 

what is available today. (EIA Global, No. 

80 at p. 4–5) 

EIA Global stated that including 

hydrocarbon refrigerants in the analysis 

will be of little burden to DOE because 

Scotsman, Hoshizaki, and Manitowoc 

already sell hydrocarbon machines 

throughout Europe and other 

international markets and noted that 

these three manufacturers have 

observed energy savings associated with 

use of these refrigerants. (EIA Global, 

No. 80 at p. 1–4) 

In response to EIA Global’s 

comments, DOE notes that hydrocarbon 

refrigerants have not yet been approved 

by the EPA SNAP program and hence 

cannot be considered as a technology 

option in DOE’s analysis. DOE also 

notes that, while it is possible that HFC 

refrigerants currently used in automatic 

commercial ice makers may be 

restricted by future rules, DOE cannot 

speculate on the outcome of a 

rulemaking in progress and can only 

consider in its rulemakings rules that 

are currently in effect. Therefore, DOE 

has not included possible outcomes of 

a potential EPA SNAP rulemaking. This 

position is consistent with past DOE 

rulings, such as in the 2014 final rule for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 79 

FR 17725 (March 28, 2014) DOE notes 

that recent proposals by the EPA to 

allow use of hydrocarbon refrigerants or 

to impose new restrictions on the use of 

HFC refrigerants do not address 

automatic commercial ice maker 

applications. 79 FR 46126 (August 6, 

2014) DOE acknowledges that there are 

government-wide efforts to reduce 

emissions of HFCs, and such actions are 

being pursued both through 

international diplomacy as well as 

domestic actions. DOE, in concert with 

other relevant agencies, will continue to 

work with industry and other 

stakeholders to identify safer and more 

sustainable alternatives to HFCs while 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER28JA15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4671 

evaluating energy efficiency standards 

for this equipment. As mentioned in 

section IV.A.4, if a manufacturer 

believes that its design is subjected to 

undue hardship by regulations, the 

manufacturer may petition DOE’s Office 

of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for 

exception relief or exemption from the 

standard pursuant to OHA’s authority 

under section 504 of the DOE 

Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as 

implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 1003. OHA has the authority to 

grant such relief on a case-by-case basis 

if it determines that a manufacturer has 

demonstrated that meeting the standard 

would cause hardship, inequity, or 

unfair distribution of burdens. 

C. Screening Analysis 

In the technology assessment section 

of this final rule, DOE presents an initial 

list of technologies that can improve the 

energy efficiency of automatic 

commercial ice makers. The purpose of 

the screening analysis is to evaluate the 

technologies that improve equipment 

efficiency to determine which of these 

technologies is suitable for further 

consideration in its analyses. To do this, 

DOE uses four screening criteria— 

design options will be removed from 

consideration if they are not 

technologically feasible; are not 

practicable to manufacture, install, or 

service; have adverse impacts on 

product utility or product availability; 

or have adverse impacts on health or 

safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section (4)(a)(4). See 

chapter 4 of the final rule TSD for 

further discussion of the screening 

analysis. Another consideration is 

whether a design option provides a 

unique pathway towards increasing 

energy efficiency and that pathway is a 

proprietary design that a manufacturer 

can only get from one source. In this 

instance, such design option would be 

eliminated from consideration because 

it would require manufacturers to 

procure it from a sole source. Table IV.4 

shows the EPCA criteria and additional 

criteria used in this screening analysis, 

and the design options evaluated using 

the screening criteria. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER28JA15.001</GPH>

T a e bl IV . 4 J us tifi ICa f lOB fi or Eli mma . f mg T h I ec no ogy Of 'P'IODS f rom F ur ther Consideration 

EPCA Criteria for Not Considered in the 

Screening Analysis for Other 

Reasons 

= ,e. ~ 

Ql 

.... = ,e. ~ ~ = 6il 

= ~ 

= 00 .... = = ~ 

-

= ..,.; ~ -= = ... = ~ ""' ;;;J = ~ .... 

Ql = -= ""' .... = ~ 

~ ~ 

= ~ 

-= = Ql .... = ,;::: ·;: .... E-o Design Option ~ .... -= .:: = = = ~ 

;<.::::: Q ""' Ql 00 = == = ~ = ""' Ql 

= = ... :9 = ~ ~ .... = = = =~ Ql ~ 

~ ~ ... = = = ~ ... = Ql ~ ~ = ~ ""' ·;: ~ 

~ = .... .... ... .... ~ ~ Ql = = [; - ""' ~QI = = ..oo ~ = ~ ~ ~ 00 Ql = Ql e e -= ""' ... Ql 

~ . ~ 6z:C Ql = ~ 

.s .c ... ..,.; ..,.; ~ .... = ""' t Ql Ql 

= .:= ~ ~ ~ ""' Ql = ""' = ~ = 

= ""' = = ""' ""' = = ~u 00 

-= .... 00 Ql Ql ~ ; I 

~-= -6 -6 ........ Ql ~ 

E-o 

Ql 

~ ""' = = < < z~ 

= Ql E-<Z ~ = 00 -

= 

Compressor Part Load ..j ..j Operation 

Enhanced Fin Surfaces ..j 

Brazed Plate Condenser ..j 

Microchannel Condenser ..j 

Technology Options to Reduce ..j ..j Evaporator Thermal Cycling 

Technology Options Which 

Reduce Harvest Meltage or ..j 

Reduce Harvest Time 

Tube Evaporator ..j Configuration 

Improved or Thicker ..j Insulation 

Larger Diameter Suction Line ..j 

Smart Technologies -v -v 

Table IV.5 contains the list of technologies that remained after the screening analysis. 

Table IV.S Technology Options for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers that were Screened 

In 

Technology Options Batch Ice Continuous Notes Makers Ice Makers 

Compressor Improved compressor efficiency ..j ..j 

Increased surface area -v -v 

Condenser Increased air flow ..j ..j Air-cooled 

only 

Increased water flow -v -v Water-cooled 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4673 

28Welch, D.L., et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,555,734, 

Sep. 17, 1996. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

a. General Comments 

Manitowoc expressed its agreement 

with the screening analysis. 

(Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 3) However, 

Scotsman requested that the following 

additional criteria be used in the 

screening analysis: Impact on end-user 

facility and operations, impact on enduser profit-generating beverage sales, 

impact on machine footprint, impact on 

end-user ‘‘repair existing’’ or ‘‘purchase 

new’’ decision hierarchy, impact on 

ACIM service and installation network 

support capability, and impact on 

manufacturer component tooling/fixture 

obsolescence prior to depreciation. 

(Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 3b–4b) 

In response to Scotsman comment, 

DOE notes that while DOE’s screening 

analysis specifically focuses on the four 

criteria identified in the process rule 

(see 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, section (4)(a)(4)), some of 

the suggested screening criteria outlined 

in Scotsman’s comment are taken into 

account in other parts of the analysis. 

Specifically, impacts to end user facility 

and operations, including installations 

costs, are considered in the life cycle 

cost analysis described in section IV.G. 

Impacts regarding manufacturing 

tooling are examined in the 

manufacturing impact analysis 

described in section IV.J. 

b. Drain Water Heat Exchanger 

Batch ice makers can benefit from 

drain water thermal exchange that cools 

the potable water supply entering the 

sump, thereby reducing the energy 

required to cool down and freeze the 

water. Technological feasibility is 

demonstrated by one commercially 

available drain water thermal heat 

exchanger that is currently sold only for 

aftermarket installation. This product is 

designed to be installed externally to the 

ice maker, and both drain water and 

supply water are piped through the 

device. 

Drain water heat exchangers, both 

internally mounted and externally 

mounted, are design options that can 

increase the energy efficiency of 

automatic commercial ice makers. The 

current test procedures would give 

manufacturers credit for efficiency 

improvement of drain water heat 

exchangers, including externally 

mounted drain water heat exchangers as 

long as they are provided with the 

machine and the installation 

instructions for the machine indicate 

that the heat exchangers are part of the 

machine and must be installed as part 

of the overall installation. 

In response to the NODA, Manitowoc 

stated that drain water heat exchangers 

have not been proven in the industry 

(DOE assumes that this comment 

addresses issues such as their reliability 

rather than their potential for energy 

savings) and their use is likely to result 

in lower reliability due to issues with 

fouling and clogging associated with 

mineral particles that naturally 

accumulate in the dump water for batch 

cycle machines. Manitowoc also added 

that the high costs for drain water heat 

exchangers are not justified by their 

efficiency gains. (Manitowoc, No. 126 at 

p. 2) AHRI stated that a drain water heat 

exchanger cannot reasonably be 

implemented in a 22-inch IMH–A– 

Small–B unit. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that drain water heat 

exchangers have been discussed as a 

possible technology option from the 

framework stage of this rulemaking. 

DOE has investigated the feasibility of 

drain water heat exchangers through 

review of product literature, patents, 

reports on installations, and product 

teardowns, and has also conducted 

testing to evaluate the claims of 

efficiency improvement for the 

technology. While fouling of the heat 

exchanger is a potential concern based 

on the higher mineral concentration in 

dump water, heat exchangers designed 

for use with ice makers have been 

designed with electrically insulated 

gaskets to substantially reduce 

deposition of particulates on heat 

exchanger surfaces.28 Moreover, drain 

water heat exchangers would also 

benefit from typical maintenance of ice 

machines that includes dissolution of 

such mineral deposits on all 

components that come into contact with 

potable water. DOE is not aware of data 

showing that the units sold have 

substantial reliability issues as a 

consequence of fouling in retrofit 

applications. Further, Manitowoc has 

not provided information or test data 

showing that they would reduce 

reliability. DOE also notes that 

answering the question of whether the 

inclusion of a drain water heat 

exchanger is cost-effective is a goal of 

the DOE analyses and is not considered 

during the screening analysis. DOE has 

examined the added cost of a drain 

water heater along with the energy 

savings resulting from its use and has 

found drain water heat exchangers to be 

cost justified for certain equipment 

classes. 

In response to AHRI’s comment 

suggesting that drain water heat 

exchangers may not fit in a 22-inch 

IMH–A–Small–B cabinet, DOE notes 

that the heat exchanger would be 

mounted outside the unit, rather than 

enclosed within the cabinet. If AHRI’s 

comment did not mean to indicate that 

the objection was to placement of the 

heat exchanger within the unit, the 

comment also did not make clear why 

such a component could not be 

implemented specifically for a 22-inch 

wide unit. 

In response to AHRI’s comment 

suggesting that drain water heat 

exchangers may not fit in a 22-inch 

IMH–A–Small–B cabinet, DOE notes 

that the heat exchanger would be 

mounted outside the unit, rather than 

enclosed within the cabinet. If AHRI’s 

comment did not mean to indicate that 

the objection was placement of the heat 

exchanger within the unit, the comment 

also did not make clear why such a 

component could not be implemented 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER28JA15.002</GPH>
4674 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

specifically for a 22-inch wide unit. 

DOE did screen in this technology. 

c. Tube Evaporator Design 

Among the technologies that DOE 

considered were tube evaporators that 

use a vertical shell and tube 

configuration in which refrigerant 

evaporates on the outer surfaces of the 

tubes inside the shell, and the freezing 

water flows vertically inside the tubes to 

create long ice tubes that are cut into 

smaller pieces during the harvest 

process. Some of the largest automatic 

commercial ice makers in the RCU– 

NRC–Large–B and the IMH–W–Large–B 

equipment classes use this technology. 

However, DOE concluded that 

implementation of this technology for 

smaller capacity ice makers would 

significantly impact equipment utility, 

due to the greater weight and size of 

these designs, and to the altered ice 

shape. DOE noted that available tube ice 

makers (for capacities around 1,500 lb 

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

were 150 to 200 percent heavier than 

comparable cube ice makers. Based on 

the impacts to utility of this technology, 

DOE screened out tube evaporators from 

consideration in this analysis. 

d. Low Thermal Mass Evaporator Design 

DOE’s analysis did not consider low 

thermal mass evaporator designs. 

Reducing evaporator thermal mass of 

batch type ice makers reduces the heat 

that must be removed from the 

evaporator after the harvest cycle, and 

thus decreases refrigeration system 

energy use. DOE indicated during the 

preliminary analysis that it was 

concerned about the potential 

proprietary status of such evaporator 

designs, since DOE is aware of only one 

manufacturer that produces equipment 

with such evaporators. DOE has not 

altered its decision to screen out this 

technology in its analysis. 

e. Microchannel Heat Exchangers 

Through discussions with 

manufacturers, DOE has determined 

that there are no instances of energy 

savings associated with the use of 

microchannel heat exchangers in ice 

makers. Manufacturers also noted that 

the reduced refrigerant charge 

associated with microchannel heat 

exchangers can be detrimental to the 

harvest performance of batch type ice 

makers, as there is not enough charge to 

transfer heat to the evaporator from the 

condenser. 

DOE contacted microchannel 

manufacturers to determine whether 

there were energy savings associated 

with use of microchannel heat 

exchangers in automatic commercial ice 

makers. These microchannel 

manufacturers noted that investigation 

of microchannel was driven by space 

constraints rather than efficiency. 

Because the potential for energy 

savings is inconclusive, based on DOE 

analysis as well as feedback from 

manufacturers and heat exchanger 

suppliers, and based on the potential 

utility considerations associated with 

compromised harvest performance in 

batch type ice makers associated with 

this heat exchanger technology’s 

reduced refrigerant charge, DOE 

screened out microchannel heat 

exchangers as a design option in this 

rulemaking. 

f. Smart Technologies 

While there may be energy demand 

benefits associated with use of ‘‘smart 

technologies’’ in ice makers in that they 

reduce energy demand (e.g., shift the 

refrigeration system operation to a time 

of utility lower demand), DOE is not 

aware of any commercialized products 

or prototypes that also demonstrate 

improved energy efficiency in automatic 

commercial ice makers. Demand savings 

alone do not impact energy efficiency, 

and DOE cannot consider technologies 

that do not offer energy savings as 

measured by the DOE test procedure. 

Since the scope of this rulemaking is to 

consider energy conservation standards 

that increase the energy efficiency of 

automatic commercial ice makers this 

technology option has been screened 

out because it does not save energy as 

measured by the test procedure. 

g. Motors 

Manufacturers Follett and Manitowoc 

provided comment regarding the use of 

higher efficiency motors in ACIMs. 

Follett stated that they are not aware of 

gear motors more efficient than the 

hypoid motors they use. (Follett, No. 84 

at p. 5) Manitowoc stated that they do 

not consider brushless direct-current 

(DC) fan motors to be cost effective. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 157–159) 

In response to Follett’s comment, DOE 

notes that its consideration of motor 

efficiency applies to the prime mover 

portion of the motor, not the gear drive. 

Gear motor assemblies include both a 

motor which converts electricity to shaft 

power and a gear drive, which converts 

the high rotational speed of the motor 

shaft to the rotational speed required by 

the auger. DOE screened in higher 

efficiency options for the motor, but did 

not consider higher-efficiency gear 

drives. In response to Manitowoc, the 

cost-effectiveness of a given technology, 

such as DC fan motors, is not a factor 

that is considered when screening 

technologies. 

D. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis determines 

the manufacturing costs of achieving 

increased efficiency or decreased energy 

consumption. DOE historically has used 

the following three methodologies to 

generate the manufacturing costs 

needed for its engineering analyses: (1) 

The design-option approach, which 

provides the incremental costs of adding 

to a baseline model design options that 

will improve its efficiency; (2) the 

efficiency-level approach, which 

provides the relative costs of achieving 

increases in energy efficiency levels, 

without regard to the particular design 

options used to achieve such increases; 

and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse 

engineering) approach, which provides 

‘‘bottom-up’’ manufacturing cost 

assessments for achieving various levels 

of increased efficiency, based on 

detailed data as to costs for parts and 

material, labor, shipping/packaging, and 

investment for models that operate at 

particular efficiency levels. 

As discussed in the Framework 

document, preliminary analysis, and 

NOPR analysis, DOE conducted the 

engineering analyses for this rulemaking 

using an approach that combines the 

efficiency level, design option, and 

reverse engineering approaches to 

develop cost-efficiency curves for 

automatic commercial ice makers. DOE 

established efficiency levels defined as 

percent energy use lower than that of 

baseline efficiency products. DOE’s 

engineering analysis is based on 

illustrating a typical design path to 

achieving the specified percentage 

efficiency improvements at each level 

through the incorporation of a group of 

design options. Finally, DOE developed 

manufacturing cost models based on 

reverse engineering of products to 

develop baseline manufacturer 

production costs (MPCs) and to 

supplement incremental cost estimate 

associated with efficiency 

improvements. 

DOE directly analyzed 19 ice maker 

configurations representing different 

classes, capacities, and physical sizes. 

To develop cost-efficiency curves, DOE 

collected information from multiple 

sources to characterize the 

manufacturing cost and energy use 

reduction of each of the design options 

or grouping of design options. DOE 

conducted an extensive review of 

product literature on hundreds of ice 

makers and selected 50 of them for 

testing and reverse engineering. 

To gather cost and performance 

information of different ice maker 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4675 

design strategies, DOE conducted 

interviews with ice maker 

manufacturers and component vendors 

of compressors and fan motors during 

the preliminary, NOPR, NODA, and 

final phases of the rulemaking Cost 

information from the vendor interviews 

and discussions with manufacturers 

provided input to the manufacturing 

cost model. DOE determined 

incremental costs associated with 

specific design options from vendor 

information, discussion with 

manufacturers, and the cost model. DOE 

calculated energy use reduction based 

on test data, data provided in 

comments, data provided in 

manufacturer interviews, and using the 

FREEZE program, The reverse 

engineering, equipment testing, vendor 

interviews, and manufacturer interviews 

provided input for the energy analysis. 

Information about specific ice makers 

also provided equipment examples 

against which the modeling results 

could be calibrated. The final 

incremental cost estimates and the 

energy modeling results together 

constitute the energy efficiency curves 

presented in the final rule TSD 

chapter 5. 

The cost-efficiency relationships were 

derived from current market designs so 

that efficiency calculations could be 

verified by ratings or testing. Another 

benefit of using market designs is that 

the efficiency performance can be 

associated with the use of particular 

design options or design option 

groupings. The cost of these design 

option changes can then be isolated and 

also verified. In earlier stages of the rule 

DOE had limited information on current 

market designs and relied on the 

FREEZE model to supplement and 

extend its design-option energy 

modeling analysis. For the NODA and 

Final Rule, DOE has expanded its 

knowledge base of market designs 

through its own program of testing and 

reverse engineering, but also received 

test and design information from ice 

maker manufacturers. The costefficiency curves are now based on 

these market designs, test data obtained 

both through DOE testing and from 

manufacturers, specific information 

about component performance (e.g. 

motor efficiency) on which stakeholders 

have been able to comment, and in some 

instances use of the FREEZE model. 

DOE limited the projected efficiency 

levels for groups of design options 

found in available equipment to the 

maximum available efficiency levels 

associated with the specific classes. The 

groups of design options that DOE’s 

analysis predicted would be required to 

attain these maximum efficiency levels 

were consistent with those of the 

maximum available ice makers or were 

found to provide a conservative estimate 

of cost compared to the market designs 

of equal efficiency employing different 

design option groups to attain the level. 

Additional details of the engineering 

analysis are available in chapter 5 of the 

final rule TSD. 

1. Representative Equipment for 

Analysis 

In performing its engineering analysis, 

DOE selected representative units 

within specific equipment types to serve 

as analysis points in the development of 

cost-efficiency curves. DOE selected 

models that were representative of the 

typical offerings within a given 

equipment class. DOE sought to select 

models having features and technologies 

typically found in both the minimum 

and maximum efficiency equipment 

currently available on the market. 

DOE received several comments from 

interested parties regarding those 

equipment classes not directly analyzed 

in the NOPR. Follett commented that 

they object to the fact that only one 

RCU–Large–C was purchased for testing, 

given that it represents nearly half of 

Follett’s sales. Follett added that they 

also object to the fact that DOE did not 

analyze IMH–W–Small–C, IMH–W– 

Large–C, RCU–Small–C, and RCU– 

Large–C, which comprise a significant 

portion of Follett’s revenue. Follett 

expressed its fear that DOE’s approach 

could require Follett to enact design 

changes that are neither technologically 

feasible nor economically justified. 

(Follett, No. 84 at p. 7–8) Follett added 

that all manufacturers have unique 

designs that should be noted during 

reverse engineering analyses. (Follett, 

No. 84 at p. 8) Similarly, Hoshizaki 

commented that DOE only analyzed less 

than 1% of available units and that 

analysis did not include testing to 

validate proposed design changes. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 86 at 

p. 1) 

Ice-O-Matic noted that half cube 

machines represent a significant portion 

of the industry and expressed concern 

that DOE did not attempt to analyze half 

cube machines. (Ice-O-Matic, No. 121 at 

p. 3) 

In response to Ice-o-Matic, DOE notes 

that it focused its analysis on full cube 

machines based on the observation that 

half cube machines may have an 

efficiency advantage over full cube 

machines. For some models that are 

available in both versions, the energy 

use ratings are different, and generally 

the half-dice version has lower energy. 

This is consistent with the fact that the 

additional copper strips that divide the 

full-cube cells into two half-cube cells 

also provide additional heat transfer 

surface area that can enhance ice maker 

performance. 

In response to Follett and Hoshizaki’s 

comments, DOE is limited in time and 

resources, and as such, cannot directly 

analyze all models. DOE responded to 

NOPR comments regarding lack of 

analysis of continuous RCU units by 

adding direct analysis of a continuous 

RCU configuration with capacity of 800 

lb ice/24 hours. This capacity is near the 

border between the small and large RCU 

continuous classes, hence it provides 

representation for both capacity ranges. 

DOE reviewed Follett’s available 

continuous RCU ice maker data, as 

listed in the ENERGY STAR© database, 

and found that nearly all of the models 

meet the standard set in this rule. Of the 

two that don’t, one has adjusted energy 

use within 1 percent of the standard, 

and one has energy use within 6 

percent. 

DOE disagrees with Hoshizaki’s 

statement that DOE analyzed less than 

one percent of available units and 

believes it mischaracterizes DOE’s 

analysis. DOE identified 656 current ice 

maker models in its research of 

available databases and Web sites. DOE 

did not analyze Hoshizaki batch ice 

makers, due to their proprietary 

evaporator design—hence the 91 

Hoshizaki batch models would not have 

been considered in DOE’s analysis for 

this reason. DOE developed 19 analyses, 

3.4 percent of the remaining 565 

models. Moreover, DOE asserts that the 

range of models analyzed provides a 

good representation of ice maker 

efficiency trends. DOE carefully selected 

the analyzed units to represent 13 of the 

25 ice maker equipment classes listed in 

Table IV.2 representing roughly 93 

percent of ice maker shipments. 

DOE does not generally conduct 

prototype testing to verify the energy 

savings projections associated with 

specific design changes. For this, DOE 

has requested data from stakeholders 

who have done such work. DOE 

received such test data, some of it 

through confidential information 

exchange with its contractor, and 

considered this data in the analysis. 

Further, DOE also considered test data 

and design details of commercially 

available ice makers, which it used to 

calibrate its projections of energy 

reductions associated with groups of 

design options. 

In many cases, DOE leveraged 

information found by directly analyzing 

similar product classes to supplement 

the analysis of those secondary 

equipment classes which were not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4676 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

directly analyzed. These similar 

equipment classes are listed in Table 

IV.6. The details of why these 

equipment classes were chosen can be 

found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE IV.6—DIRECTLY ANALYZED

EQUIPMENT CLASSES USED TO DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY

CLASSES

Secondary equipment 

class 

Analyzed equipment 

class associated with 

efficiency level for 

secondary equipment 

class 

RCU–NRC–Small–B RCU–NRC–Large–B. 

RCU–RC–Small–B ... RCU–NRC–Large–B. 

RCU–RC–Large–B ... RCU–NRC–Large–B. 

SCU–W–Small–B ..... SCU–W–Large–B. 

IMH–W–Small–C ...... IMH–A–Small–C. 

IMH–W–Large–C ...... IMH–A–Large–C. 

RCU–NRC–Large–C RCU–NRC–Small–C. 

RCU–RC–Small–C ... RCU–NRC–Small–C. 

RCU–RC–Large–C ... RCU–NRC–Small–C. 

SCU–W–Small–C ..... SCU–A–Small–C. 

SCU–W–Large–C ..... SCU–A–Small–C. 

SCU–A–Large–C ...... SCU–A–Small–C. 

2. Efficiency Levels 

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

EPCA, as amended by the EPACT 

2005, prescribed the following 

standards for batch type ice makers, 

shown in Table IV.7, effective January 1, 

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

engineering analysis, DOE used the 

existing batch type equipment standards 

as the baseline efficiency level for the 

equipment types under consideration in 

this rulemaking. Also, DOE applied the 

standards for equipment with harvest 

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

baseline efficiency levels for the larger 

batch type equipment with harvest 

capacities between 2,500 and 4,000 lb 

ice/24 hours, which are currently not 

regulated. DOE applied two exceptions 

to this approach, as discussed below. 

For the IMH–W–Small–B equipment 

class, DOE slightly adjusted the baseline 

energy use level to close a gap between 

the IMH–W–Small–B and the IMH–W– 

Medium–B equipment classes. For 

equipment in the IMH–A–Large–B 

equipment class with harvest capacity 

above 2,500 lb ice per 24 hours, DOE 

chose a baseline efficiency level equal to 

the current standard level at the 2,500 

lb ice per 24 hours capacity. In its 

analysis, DOE is treating the constant 

portion of the IMH–A–Large–B 

equipment class as a separate 

equipment class, IMH–A–Extended–B. 

As noted in section IV.B.1.d DOE is 

not proposing adjustment of maximum 

condenser water use standards for batch 

type ice makers. The section also 

generally discusses DOE regulation of 

condenser water. First, DOE’s authority 

does not extend to regulation of water 

use, except as explicitly provided by 

EPCA. Second, DOE determined that 

increasing condenser water use 

standards to allow for more water flow 

in order to reduce energy use is not costeffective. The details of this analysis are 

available in chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD. 

For water-cooled batch equipment 

with harvest capacity less than 2,500 lb 

ice per 24 hours, the baseline condenser 

water use is equal to the current 

condenser water use standards for this 

equipment. 

For water-cooled equipment with 

harvest capacity greater than 2,500 lb 

ice per 24 hours, DOE set maximum 

condenser water standards equal to the 

current standard level for the same type 

of equipment with a harvest capacity of 

2,500 lb ice per 24 hours—the proposed 

standard level would not continue to 

drop as harvest capacity increases, as it 

does for equipment with harvest 

capacity less than 2,500 lb ice per 24 

hours. 

TABLE IV.7—BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR BATCH ICE MAKERS

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice 

Maximum 

condenser 

water use * 

gal/100 lb ice 

Ice—Making Head .................................................... Water ................ <500 7.80—0.0055H ** 200—0.022H. 

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

≥1,436 4.0 145. 

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

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

≥2,500 4.1 Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .. Air ..................... <1,000 

≥1,000 

8.85—0.0038H 

5.10 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

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

≥934 

8.85—0.0038H 

5.30 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Self—Contained ........................................................ Water ................ <200 

≥200 

11.4—0.019H 

7.60 

191—0.0 

For <2,500: 191— 

0.0315H. 

For ≥2,500: 112. 

Air ..................... <175 

≥175 

18.0—0.0469H 

9.80 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

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

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

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

Currently there are no DOE energy 

standards for continuous type ice 

makers. During the preliminary 

analysis, DOE developed baseline 

efficiency levels using energy use data 

available from several sources, as 

discussed in chapter 3 of the 

preliminary TSD. DOE chose baseline 

efficiency levels that would be met by 

nearly all ice makers represented in the 

databases, using ice hardness 

assumptions of 70 for flake ice makers 

and 85 for nugget ice makers, since ice 

hardness data was not available at the 

time. For the NOPR analysis, DOE used 

available information published in the 

AHRI Directory of Certified Product 

Performance, the California Energy 

Commission, the ENERGY STAR 

program, and vendor Web sites, to 

update its icemaker ratings database 

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

AHRI published equipment ratings 

including ice hardness data, measured 

as prescribed by ASHRAE 29–2009, 

which is incorporated by reference in 

the DOE test procedure. DOE recreated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4677 

its baseline efficiency levels for 

continuous type ice makers based on the 

available AHRI data, considering 

primarily the ice makers for which ice 

hardness data were available. DOE also 

adjusted the harvest capacity break 

points for the continuous equipment 

classes based on the new data. 

The baseline efficiency levels used in 

the NOPR analysis for continuous type 

ice makers are presented in Table IV.8. 

For the remote condensing equipment, 

the large-capacity remote compressor 

and large-capacity non-remote 

compressor classes have been separated 

and are different by 0.2 kWh/100 lb, 

identical to the batch equipment 

differential for the large batch classes. 

TABLE IV.8—NOPR BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CONTINUOUS ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice * 

Maximum condenser 

water use * 

gal/100 lb ice 

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

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

>2,500: 116. 

Air ..................... Small (<700) 

Large (≥700) 

11.0–0.00629H 

6.6 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

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

Large (≥850) 

10.2–0.00459H 

6.3 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

Remote Condensing (Non-remote Compressor) ...... Air ..................... Small (<850) 

Large (≥850) 

10.0–0.00459H 

6.1 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

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

Large (≥900) 6.1 ≤2,500: 

153–0.0252H. 

>2,500: 90. 

Air ..................... Small (<700) 

Large (≥700) 

11.5–0.00629H 

7.1 

* H = harvest capacity in lb ice/24 hours 

After the publication of the NOPR and 

the NOPR public meeting, DOE received 

two comments from interested parties 

regarding its establishment of baseline 

models. 

In response to the NOPR, Scotsman 

commented that there is not sufficient 

historical data (greater than 1 year) to 

establish continuous type baselines with 

statistical confidence. Scotsman added 

that the current ASHRAE standard is 

biased against low-capacity machines, 

and therefore does not accurately 

represent the energy usage of the 

machine when corrected for hardness 

factor. (Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 3b) 

DOE has found multiple sources of 

information regarding the energy 

efficiency of continuous ice machines 

on the market. As noted previously, 

DOE investigated information published 

in the AHRI Directory of Certified 

Product Performance, the California 

Energy Commission, the ENERGY STAR 

program, and vendor Web sites to 

inform the establishment of a baseline 

for continuous models. In regards to 

Scottsman’s comment that the standard 

is biased against low capacity machines, 

DOE has set its baseline levels while 

considering continuous model energy 

use that has been adjusted using the 

current ASHRAE test standard. If the 

test is biased against low-capacity 

machines, this bias should be reflected 

in the data and already be accounted for 

in the selected baseline levels. 

Hoshizaki stated that they believe the 

baseline levels presented in the NOPR 

are too harsh for continuous equipment 

as it leaves many ENERGY STAR units 

unable to meet the minimum energy 

efficiency baseline. Hoshizaki noted that 

DOE based its analysis on the 2012 

AHRI listing. Hoshizaki requested that 

DOE reassess the baseline data for all 

current continuous models as many 

more units have since been listed on 

AHRI’s Web site. (Hoshizaki, No. 86 at 

p. 2–3) Similarly, Follett commented 

that some of the data on continuous 

type ice makers were not available in 

2012, since they were not a part of the 

ENERGY STAR program until 2013, and 

that the baseline line might move up if 

recent data was added to the plot. 

(Follet, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

70 at p. 76–78) PGE/SDG&E commented 

that they support DOE’s updating their 

database with new data from all sources, 

including the CEC, AHRI, and NRCan 

databases. (PG&E and SDG&E, No. 89 at 

p. 3) 

In response to Hoshizaki’s comment 

about ENERGY STAR-rated continuous 

models, for which there are currently no 

federal standard levels that would 

clearly represent the baseline efficiency 

levels, DOE revised its continuous class 

baselines so that no ENERGY STARrated continuous models have energy 

use higher than the baseline. The 

revised baseline efficiency levels for the 

continuous SCU classes are shown in 

Table IV.9 below. However, DOE notes 

that baseline efficiency levels are not 

required to be set at a level with which 

all commercially available equipment 

would be compliant. There are some 

IMH–W models and some IMH–A 

models that have energy use higher than 

the selected baseline levels—this is 

illustrated in the comparison of 

equipment data and efficiency levels in 

Chapter 3 of the TSD. DOE selected 

baseline efficiency levels that provide a 

good representation of the highest 

energy use exhibited by models 

available on the market with the 

exclusion of a few outliers (i.e. models 

exhibiting very different energy use than 

the majority of models). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4678 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.9—MODIFIED BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR SCU CONTINUOUS ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Maximum 

energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice * 

Maximum 

condenser 

water use * 

gal/100 lb ice 

Self-Contained .......................................................... Water ................ Small (<900) 9.5—0.00378H 153—0.0252H. 

Large (≥900) 6.1 ≤2,500: 

153—0.0252H 

>2,500: 90. 

Air ..................... Small (<200) 16.3—0.03H Not Applicable. 

Large (≥200 and 

< 700) 

11.84—0.0078H Not Applicable. 

Extended (≥ 700) 6.38 Not Applicable. 

* H = harvest capacity in lb ice/24 hours. 

In response to the comments related 

to data sources DOE notes that it has 

continued to update the analysis with 

new data as it becomes available. This 

includes new information published in 

the AHRI Directory of Certified Product 

Performance, the California Energy 

Commission and the ENERGY STAR 

program. 

In response to the NODA analysis, 

Hoshizaki again stated that DOE has not 

conducted enough analysis to accurately 

portray the baseline efficiency levels of 

continuous models (Hoshizaki, No. 124 

at p. 1) NAFEM also stated that the 

NODA continuous unit baselines do not 

reflect the current models in the 

marketplace. (NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 2) 

DOE has evaluated all available data 

sources in its determination of the 

baseline efficiency levels for continuous 

units. However, as stated above, DOE 

notes that the baseline level selected is 

not necessarily the least efficient 

equipment on the market. As part of this 

review of data sources, DOE has 

modified the baseline condenser water 

use levels for IMH–W continuous 

classes such that they are 10 percent 

below the IMH–W batch baseline water 

use levels. 

b. Incremental Efficiency Levels 

For each of the 11 analyzed batch type 

ice-maker equipment classes and the 

four analyzed continuous ice maker 

equipment classes, DOE established a 

series of incremental efficiency levels 

for which it has calculated incremental 

costs. DOE chose these classes to be 

representative of all ice-making 

equipment classes, and grouped nonanalyzed equipment classes with similar 

analyzed equipment classes accordingly 

in the downstream analysis. Table IV.10 

shows the selected incremental 

efficiency levels considered in the final 

rule analysis for batch ice makers, and 

Table IV.11 shows the incremental 

efficiency levels considered for 

continuous ice makers. 

TABLE IV.10—INCREMENTAL EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR BATCH ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES CONSIDERED IN THE FINAL

RULE ANALYSIS

Equipment type * 

Harvest capacity rate 

lb ice/24 hours EL 2 ** 

(%) 

EL 3 

EL 3A *** 

(%) 

EL 4 

EL 4A *** 

(%) 

EL 5 

(%) 

EL 6 

(%) 

EL 7 

(%) 

Range Representative 

capacity 

IMH–W–Small–B .......... <500 300 10 15 20 24 .................. ..................

22 .................. .................. ..................

IMH–W–Med–B ............ ≥500 and <1,436 850 10 15 18 .................. .................. ..................

IMH–W–Large–B .......... ≥1,436 1,500 8 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

IMH–W–Large–B .......... ≥1,436 2,600 7 .................. .................. .................. .................. ..................

IMH–A–Small–B ........... <450 300 10 15 

18 

20 25 26 ..................

IMH–A–Large–B ........... ≥450 800 10 15 

16 

20 23 .................. ..................

IMH–A–Large–B ........... ≥450 1,500 10 12 .................. .................. .................. ..................

RCU–NRC–Small–B .... ................................ Not Directly Analyzed 

RCU–NRC–Large–B .... ≥1,000 1,500 10 15 17 .................. .................. ..................

RCU–NRC–Large–B .... ≥1,000 2,400 10 14 .................. .................. .................. ..................

RCU–RC–Small–B ....... <934 Not Directly Analyzed 

RCU–RC–Large–B ....... ≥934 Not Directly Analyzed 

SCU–W–Small–B ......... >200 Not Directly Analyzed 

SCU–W–Small–B ......... ≥200 300 10 15 20 25 30 ..................

SCU–A–Small–B .......... <175 110 10 15 20 25 30 33 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4679 

TABLE IV.10—INCREMENTAL EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR BATCH ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES CONSIDERED IN THE FINAL

RULE ANALYSIS—Continued 

Equipment type * 

Harvest capacity rate 

lb ice/24 hours EL 2 ** 

(%) 

EL 3 

EL 3A *** 

(%) 

EL 4 

EL 4A *** 

(%) 

EL 5 

(%) 

EL 6 

(%) 

EL 7 

(%) 

Range Representative 

capacity 

SCU–A–Large–B .......... ≥175 200 10 15 20 25 29 ..................

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

** EL = efficiency level; EL 1 is the baseline efficiency level, while EL 2 through EL 7 represent increased efficiency levels. 

*** DOE considered intermediate efficiency levels 3A and 4A for some equipment classes. 

TABLE IV.11—INCREMENTAL EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CONTINUOUS TYPE ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT CLASSES CONSIDERED

IN THE FINAL RULE ANALYSIS

Equipment Type * 

Harvest capacity 

lb ice/24 hours EL 2 ** 

(%) 

EL 3 

(%) 

EL 4 

(%) 

EL 5 

(%) 

EL 6 

(%) 

Range Representative 

capacity 

IMH–W–Small–C ................................ <900 Not Directly Analyzed 

IMH–W–Large–C ............................... ≥900 Not Directly Analyzed 

IMH–A–Small–C ................................. <700 310 10 15 20 25 26 

IMH–A–Large–C ................................ ≥700 820 10 15 20 23 ..................

RCU–Small–C .................................... <850 800 10 15 20 25 27 

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

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

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

SCU–A–Small–C ................................ <700 220 10 15 20 25 27 

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

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

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

In response to the NODA, Hoshizaki 

stated that ‘‘there are no models that 

achieve the NODA levels in SCU–A, 

IMH–W large, or RCU–A large’’ 

equipment classes. Hoshizaki added 

that these same levels were not analyzed 

for cost curves. (Hoshizaki, No. 124 at 

p. 1) 

As discussed above in section IV.D.1, 

DOE’s analysis for the RCU class was at 

a representative capacity of 800 lb ice/ 

24 hours, intended to provide 

representation for both small and large 

classes, by being at a capacity level in 

the large range but within 100 lb ice/24 

hours of the small range. Continuous ice 

maker data that DOE collected from 

publicly available sources does show 

that nearly all ice makers meet the 

baseline efficiency levels considered in 

the analysis. Not all meet the efficiency 

levels eventually designated as TSL 3 

for the final rule, but some ice makers 

over a broad capacity range in each of 

the cited classes (SCU–A–C, IMH–W–C, 

RCU–RC–C, and RCU–NRC–C) do meet 

this level, shown in Table IV.12 through 

Table IV.15. A comparison of the levels 

achieved by commercially available ice 

makers with the considered TSL levels 

is shown graphically in Chapter 3 of the 

TSD. 

TABLE IV.12—AIR-COOLED, SELF-CONTAINED, CONTINUOUS UNITS MEETING THE FINAL RULE STANDARD

Manufacturer Model Harvest capacity 

(lb ice/24 hours) 

Adjusted energy 

use 

(kWh/100 lb ice) 

Standard 

(kWh/100 lb ice) Hardness factor 

Hoshizaki .......................... F–330BAH–C ................... 222 7.99 8.08 84.5 

Hoshizaki .......................... F–330BAH ........................ 238 7.56 7.98 69.8 

Manitowoc ......................... RNS0385A–161 ................ 248 7.75 7.92 86 

Scotsman .......................... MDT5N25WS–1# ............. 455 4.99 6.63 75 

Hoshizaki .......................... DCM–751BWH ................. 631 5.21 5.53 88.9 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.13—WATER-COOLED, ICE MAKING HEAD, CONTINUOUS UNITS MEETING THE FINAL RULE STANDARD

Manufacturer Model Harvest capacity 

(lb ice/24 hours) 

Adjusted energy 

use 

(kWh/100 lb ice) 

Standard 

(kWh/100 lb ice) Hardness factor 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... GEM0450W ...................... 429 4.66 5.33 (*) 

Follet ................................. HC *700W ** ...................... 535 4.43 5.05 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... GEM0655W ...................... 578 4.2 4.94 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... MFI0805W ........................ 604 4.26 4.87 (*) 

Hoshizaki .......................... F–801MWH ...................... 635 4.48 4.78 75.1 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... GEM0650W ...................... 633 3.86 4.79 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... MFI0800W ........................ 740 3.93 4.50 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... GEM0956W ...................... 877 3.54 4.34 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... GEM0955W ...................... 927 3.71 4.34 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... MFI1256W ........................ 959 3.54 4.34 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... MFI1255W ........................ 1000 3.41 4.34 (*) 

Follet ................................. HCE1400W** .................... 1150 4.31 4.34 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... RN–1409W ....................... 1318 4.27 4.34 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... RN1409W–261 ................. 1318 4.15 4.34 88 

Follet ................................. HCC1400W *** .................. 1374 4.28 4.34 (*) 

* Ice hardness factor assumed to be 70 for flake ice makers and 85 for nugget ice makers. 

TABLE IV.14—REMOTE CONDENSING, NOT REMOTE COMPRESSOR, CONTINUOUS UNITS MEETING THE FINAL RULE

STANDARD

Manufacturer Model Harvest capacity 

(lb ice/24 hours) 

Adjusted energy 

use 

(kWh/100 lb ice) 

Proposed standard 

(kWh/100 lb ice) Hardness factor 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... GEM0650R ....................... 550 6.41 6.51 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... GEM0956R ....................... 825 4.77 4.915 (*) 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... MFI1256R ......................... 950 4.79 5.06 (*) 

Scotsman .......................... N1322R–32# .................... 1030 5.04 5.06 74 

Scotsman .......................... F1222R–32# ..................... 1050 4.97 5.06 60 

* Ice hardness factor assumed to be 70 for flake ice makers and 85 for nugget ice makers. 

TABLE IV.15—REMOTE CONDENSING, REMOTE COMPRESSOR, CONTINUOUS UNITS MEETING THE FINAL RULE STANDARD

Manufacturer Model Harvest capacity 

(lb ice/24 hours) 

Adjusted energy 

use 

(kWh/100 lb ice) 

Standard 

(kWh/100 lb ice) Hardness factor 

Follet ................................. HCD700RBT ..................... 566 5.44 6.62 88 

Manitowoc ......................... RFS1278C–261 ................ 958 5.11 5.26 72 

Follet ................................. HCD1400R *** .................. 1184 4.87 5.26 (*) 

Follet ................................. HCF1400RBT ................... 1195 4.59 5.26 89.4 

Follet ................................. HCD1650R *** .................. 1284 5.24 5.26 (*) 

Follet ................................. HCF1650RBT ................... 1441 4.14 5.26 89.9 

Manitowoc ......................... RFS2378C–261 ................ 1702 5.18 5.26 68 

Ice-O-Matic ....................... MFI2406LS ....................... 2000 4.27 5.26 (*) 

Scotsman .......................... FME2404RLS ................... 2000 3.54 5.26 (*) 

* Ice hardness factor assumed to be 70 for flake ice makers and 85 for nugget ice makers. 

c. IMH–A–Large–B Treatment 

The existing DOE energy conservation 

standard for large air-cooled IMH cube 

type ice makers is represented by an 

equation for which maximum allowable 

energy usage decreases linearly as 

harvest rate increases from 450 to 2,500 

lb ice/24 hours. In the NOPR, DOE 

proposed efficiency levels for this class 

that maintain a constant energy use in 

kwh per 100 pounds of ice at large 

capacities to the extent that this 

approach does not violate EPCA’s antibacksliding provision. 79 FR at 14877 

(March 17, 2014). 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

the approach described in the NOPR. 

Therefore, DOE maintained this 

approach for the final rule. 

d. Maximum Available Efficiency 

Equipment 

DOE considered the most-efficient 

equipment available on the market, 

known as maximum available 

equipment. For many batch equipment 

classes, the maximum available 

equipment uses proprietary or screenedout technology options that DOE did not 

consider in its engineering analysis, 

such as low thermal-mass evaporators 

and tube evaporators for batch type ice 

makers. Hence, DOE considered only 

batch maximum available equipment 

that does not include these 

technologies. These maximum available 

efficiency levels are shown in Table 

IV.16. This information is based on 

DOE’s icemaker ratings database (see 

data in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD). 

The efficiency levels are represented as 

an energy use percentage reduction 

compared to the energy use of baselineefficiency equipment. For some batch 

equipment classes, DOE has presented 

maximum available efficiency levels at 

different capacity levels or for 22-inch 

wide ice makers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4681 

TABLE IV.16—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR

MAXIMUM AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT

WITHOUT SCREENED TECHNOLOGIES

IN BATCH ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT

CLASSES

Equipment class Energy use lower than 

baseline 

IMH–W–Small–B 19.2%, 16.9% (22-inch 

wide). 

IMH–W–Med–B ... 14.3%. 

IMH–W–Large–B 5% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours), 2.5% (at 2,600 

lb ice/24 hours). 

IMH–A-Small–B ... 19.3%, 16.6% (22-inch 

wide). 

IMH–A–Large–B .. 16.1% (at 800 lb ice/24 

hours) 5.5% (at 590 lb 

ice/24 hours, 22-inch 

wide) 6.0% (at 1,500 lb 

ice/24 hours). 

RCU–Small–B ..... 25.8%. 

RCU–Large–B ..... 15.7% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours), 14.9% (at 2,400 

lb ice/24 hours). 

SCU–W–Small–B 26.2%. 

SCU–W–Large–B 27.6%. 

SCU–A–Small–B 24.9%. 

SCU–A–Large–B 26.4%. 

Efficiency levels for maximum 

available equipment in the continuous 

type ice-making equipment classes are 

shown in Table IV.17. This information 

is based on a survey of product 

databases and manufacturer Web sites 

(see data in chapter 3 of the final rule 

TSD). The efficiency levels are 

represented as an energy use percentage 

reduction compared to the energy use of 

baseline-efficiency equipment. 

TABLE IV.17—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR

MAXIMUM AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT

FOR CONTINUOUS TYPE ICE MAKER

EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Equipment class Energy use lower than 

baseline 

IMH–W–Small–C 16.5%. 

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

hours), 8.6% (at 1,800 

lb ice/24 hours). 

IMH–A–Small–C .. 28.0%. 

IMH–A–Large–C 35.7% (at 820 lb ice/24 

hours), lb ice. 

RCU–Small–C ..... 18.4%. 

RCU–Large–C ..... 18.5%. 

SCU–W–Small–C 18.7% *. 

SCU–W–Large–C No equipment on the 

market *. 

SCU–A–Small–C 29.3%. 

SCU–A–Large–C No equipment on the 

market *. 

* DOE’s inspection of currently available 

equipment revealed that there are no available 

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

SCU–A–Large–C equipment classes at this 

time. 

In response to the maximum available 

efficiency levels presented in the NODA 

AHRI suggested that DOE review the 

max available unit for the 22-inch IMH– 

A–Small–B equipment class which is 

cited at 17% as they believe the unit 

may contain proprietary design options. 

(AHRI, No. 128 at p. 3) 

DOE maintains that the representative 

22-inch unit for the IMH–A–Small–B 

equipment class did not contain any 

proprietary designs—specifically, the 

model analyzed does not include any 

proprietary or screened options such as 

low-thermal-mass evaporators or tubeice evaporators. Table IV.18 lists 22- 

inch ice makers of this class that are in 

DOE’s ice maker database. DOE 

calculated an efficiency level equal to 

12.3% for such a unit with design 

options included in maximum available 

equipment. There are three available 

units with higher efficiency level. 

Therefore, DOE has maintained the 

maximum available level for this 

equipment class in the final rule 

engineering analysis. 

TABLE IV.18—22-INCH IMH–A–SMALL–B MODELS

Harvest capacity rate 

(lb ice/24 hours) 

Rated energy use 

(kWh/100 lb ice) Percent efficiency level 

Contains 

proprietary or 

screened technology 

(e.g., low-thermal-mass 

or tube 

evaporators)? 

249 ..................................................................................................... 8.10 0.2 No. 

290 ..................................................................................................... 7.23 6.9 No. 

225 ..................................................................................................... 7.49 10.0 No. 

335 ..................................................................................................... 6.64 10.0 No. 

360 ..................................................................................................... 6.45 10.0 No. 

310 ..................................................................................................... 6.80 10.5 No. 

305 ..................................................................................................... 6.80 11.0 No. 

230 ..................................................................................................... 7.32 11.6 No. 

278 ..................................................................................................... 6.90 12.3 Yes. 

214 ..................................................................................................... 7.20 14.5 No. 

370 ..................................................................................................... 5.90 16.6 No. 

255 ..................................................................................................... 6.60 18.2 No. 

324 ..................................................................................................... 5.80 22.4 Yes. 

e. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Efficiency Levels 

When DOE adopts an amended or 

new energy conservation standard for a 

type or class of covered equipment such 

as automatic commercial ice makers, it 

determines the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible for such 

equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) 

and 6313(d)(4)) DOE determined 

maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) efficiency levels for 

automatic commercial ice makers in the 

engineering analysis by considering 

efficiency improvement beyond the 

maximum available levels associated 

with two design options that are 

generally not used in commercially 

available equipment, brushless DC 

motors and drain water heat exchangers. 

DOE has not screened out these design 

options—cost-effectiveness is not one of 

the screening criteria (see section IV.C). 

Table IV.19 and Table IV.20 show the 

max-tech levels determined in the 

NOPR engineering analysis for batch 

and continuous type automatic 

commercial ice makers, respectively. 

These max-tech levels do not consider 

use of screened technology, specifically 

low-thermal-mass evaporators and tube 

ice evaporators. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.19—FINAL RULE MAX-TECH

LEVELS FOR BATCH AUTOMATIC

COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment type * Percent energy use lower 

than baseline 

IMH–W–Small–B 23.9%, 21.5% (22 inch 

wide). 

IMH–W–Med–B ... 18.1%. 

IMH–W–Large–B 8.3% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours), 7.4% (at 2,600 

lb ice/24 hours). 

IMH–A–Small–B .. 25.5%, 18.1% (22 inch 

wide). 

IMH–A–Large–B .. 23.4% (at 800 lb ice/24 

hours), 15.8% (at 590 

lb ice/24 hours, 22 inch 

wide), 11.8% (at 1,500 

lb ice/24 hours). 

RCU–Small–B ..... Not directly analyzed. 

RCU–Large–B ..... 17.3% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 

hours), 13.9% (at 2,400 

lb ice/24 hours). 

SCU–W–Small–B Not directly analyzed. 

SCU–W–Large–B 29.8%. 

SCU–A–Small–B 32.7%. 

SCU–A–Large–B 29.1%. 

* IMH is ice-making head; RCU is remote 

condensing unit; SCU is self-contained unit; W 

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

the lowest harvest category; Med refers to the 

Medium category (water-cooled IMH only); 

Large refers to the large size category; RCU 

units were modeled as one with line losses 

used to distinguish standards. 

Note: For equipment classes that were not 

analyzed, DOE did not develop specific costefficiency curves but attributed the curve (and 

maximum technology point) from one of the 

analyzed equipment classes. 

TABLE IV.20—FINAL RULE MAX-TECH

LEVELS FOR CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

Equipment type Percent energy use lower 

than baseline 

IMH–W–Small–C Not directly analyzed. 

IMH–W–Large–C Not directly analyzed. 

IMH–A–Small–C .. 25.7% †. 

IMH–A–Large–C 23.3% (at 820 lb ice/24 

hours). 

RCU–Small–C ..... 26.6% †. 

RCU–Large–C ..... Not directly analyzed. 

TABLE IV.20—FINAL RULE MAX-TECH

LEVELS FOR CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS— 

Continued 

Equipment type Percent energy use lower 

than baseline 

SCU–W–Small–C Not directly analyzed. 

SCU–W–Large– 

C *.

No units available. 

SCU–A–Small–C 26.6% †. 

SCU–A–Large–C * No units available. 

* DOE’s investigation of equipment on the 

market revealed that there are no existing 

products in either of these two equipment 

classes (as defined in this NOPR). 

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

maximum technology point) from one of the 

analyzed equipment classes 

† Percent energy use lower than baseline. 

Several stakeholders provided 

comment regarding the maximum 

technological efficiency levels presented 

in the NOPR. 

PG&E recommended that DOE 

continue to update its product database 

to ensure that max-tech levels are set 

appropriately. (PG&E and SDG&E, No. 

89 at p. 3–4) Manitowoc stated that 

examples of currently available models 

that are near the max-tech levels are not 

generally representative of the full range 

of models in each equipment class, 

explaining that small-capacity ice 

makers can attain higher efficiency 

levels than large-capacity ice makers 

built using the same package size. 

(Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 3) AHRI 

commented that the maximum 

technologically feasible efficiency levels 

presented in the NOPR analysis were 

overestimated by up to 13% for at least 

10 equipment classes. AHRI added that 

the FREEZE energy model has been 

proven invalid through testing, citing 

two examples of testing to evaluate the 

efficiency improvement associated with 

switching to a higher-EER compressor in 

which the observed efficiency 

improvement was significantly less than 

the NOPR projections of efficiency 

improvement associated with 

compressor switching. (AHRI, No. 93 at 

p. 5–6) 

In response to the comment provided 

by PGE DOE notes that it has continued 

to update the product database with 

new data as it becomes available. 

In response to Manitowoc, DOE notes 

that its analysis has considered multiple 

capacity levels for key classes. Also, 

although DOE agrees that higher 

efficiency levels may be more difficult 

to attain by higher-capacity ice makers, 

DOE has investigated the trend of 

efficiency level as a function of harvest 

capacity and package size and 

concluded that there are no consistent 

trends in the available data that would 

indicate which capacities should be 

analyzed for each specific package size. 

79 FR at 14871–3 (March 17, 2014). DOE 

notes that while Manitowoc’s comment 

indicates that higher efficiency levels 

may be easier to attain for a smallercapacity unit in a given package size, 

the comment does not indicate which 

classes and capacities in DOE’s analysis 

represent capacities for which attaining 

higher efficiency would be so much 

easier that equipment with these 

characteristics would not be 

representative of their classes. An 

example review of the relationship of 

harvest capacity rate, efficiency level, 

and package size in volume (cubic feet) 

is shown in Table IV.21 for IMH aircooled batch ice makers. The data 

shown does not include ice makers with 

proprietary evaporator technology, nor 

does it include ice makers that produce 

large-size (gourmet) ice cubes. The data 

show that higher efficiency levels do not 

necessarily correlate either with larger 

package sizes or the smallest harvest 

capacity rates—the maximum 20.7% 

efficiency level is associated with a 

relatively small 8.3 cubic foot volume 

and a 530 lb ice/24 hour capacity rate. 

TABLE IV.21—RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HARVEST CAPACITY RATE, EFFICIENCY LEVEL, AND VOLUME FOR IMH AIRCOOLED BATCH ICE MAKERS BETWEEN 300 AND 600 LB ICE/24 HOURS

Harvest capacity rate 

(lb ice/24 hours) 

Energy use 

(kWh/100 lb 

ice) 

Percent 

efficiency 

level * 

(%) 

Volume 

(cu ft) 

305 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.80 11.0 6.7 

310 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.80 10.5 6.7 

335 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.64 10.0 6.7 

360 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.45 10.0 6.7 

370 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.90 16.6 7.0 

380 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.70 4.2 7.0 

404 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.10 10.1 7.3 

357 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.30 12.4 8.3 

358 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.95 17.1 8.3 

368 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.10 14.0 8.3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4683 

TABLE IV.21—RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HARVEST CAPACITY RATE, EFFICIENCY LEVEL, AND VOLUME FOR IMH AIRCOOLED BATCH ICE MAKERS BETWEEN 300 AND 600 LB ICE/24 HOURS—Continued 

Harvest capacity rate 

(lb ice/24 hours) 

Energy use 

(kWh/100 lb 

ice) 

Percent 

efficiency 

level * 

(%) 

Volume 

(cu ft) 

448 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.10 4.8 8.3 

448 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.10 4.8 8.3 

530 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.00 20.7 8.3 

530 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.00 20.7 8.3 

366 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.00 15.6 8.5 

459 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.80 9.2 8.5 

590 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.90 5.5 8.9 

300 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.20 19.3 9.1 

316 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.36 15.7 9.1 

320 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.20 17.4 9.1 

335 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.97 19.1 9.1 

370 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.94 16.1 9.1 

388 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.00 13.3 9.1 

390 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.79 16.2 9.1 

405 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.80 14.4 9.1 

410 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.73 14.9 9.1 

485 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.00 5.6 9.1 

490 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.41 14.8 9.1 

538 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.00 4.7 9.1 

555 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.29 15.8 9.1 

300 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.50 15.4 9.6 

380 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.80 17.0 9.6 

400 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.40 6.2 9.6 

528 ............................................................................................................................................... 6.00 4.9 9.6 

486 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.30 16.6 17.6 

* Percent energy use less than baseline energy use. 

In response to AHRI, DOE notes that 

modifications have been made to the 

engineering analysis to incorporate new 

data provided by interested parties 

regarding the expected energy savings 

resulting from the incorporation of 

design options. These modifications 

have resulted in a reevaluation of maxtech levels for several equipment 

classes. See chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD for the results of the analyses and 

a list of technologies included in maxtech equipment. Table IV.22 below 

compares the max-tech levels of AHRI’s 

NOPR comment to DOE’s NOPR phase 

max-tech levels, the maximum available 

efficiency levels, and the max-tech 

levels of DOE’s final rule analysis. The 

final-rule max-tech levels are higher 

than the AHRI max-tech levels in only 

three classes, IMH–W–Small–B, IMH– 

A–Small–B, and RCU–NRC–Large–B1 

(1,500 lb ice/24 hour representative 

capacity). AHRI’s comment mentions 

that certain design options were 

removed from consideration as part of 

AHRI’s ‘‘correction’’ of the DOE 

analysis. These design option changes 

are described in Exhibit 3 of the 

comment. (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 24). 

For IMH–A–Small–B, AHRI 

eliminated ‘‘increase in evaporator area 

by 51% (with chassis growth)’’. 

Efficiency improvement of 12.8 percent 

is attributed to this design option in the 

final rule analysis, accounting for more 

than the 7 percent difference between 

the DOE and AHRI max-tech 

projections. For IMH–W–Small–B, AHRI 

similarly eliminated design options 

involving increase in chassis size. AHRI 

indicated that design options that 

increase package size should not be 

considered for these classes because 

they include 22-inch units, which AHRI 

claimed to be space-constrained. DOE 

retained consideration of these design 

options for the final rule analysis, 

conducting additional analysis for 22- 

inch wide models, and considering the 

installation cost impacts of the larger 

chassis size for a representative 

population of units where some 

rebuilding of the surrounding space 

would be required to accommodate the 

larger size (see section IV.G.2) DOE 

considers package size increase a 

potential for added cost, rather than a 

reduction in utility that must be 

screened out of the analysis, since 

added cost is not one of the four 

screening criteria. (see 10 CFR 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section (4)(a)(4)) 

For RCU–NRC–Large–B1, DOE’s final 

rule max-tech efficiency level is only 1 

percent higher than the AHRI max-tech 

level, and the maximum available 

efficiency levels is equal to the AHRI 

max-tech level. For this class, AHRI 

modified the performance improvement 

associated with higher-EER 

compressors. DOE’s analysis uses ice 

maker efficiency improvement 

attributable to compressor improvement 

slightly better than assumed by AHRI— 

DOE’s estimate is based on a larger 

dataset of test data, evaluating the ice 

maker efficiency improvement possible 

by using improved compressors. 

TABLE IV.22—COMPARISON OF AHRI MAX TECH LEVELS WITH DOE NOPR AND FINAL RULE MAX TECH LEVELS

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

(lb ice/24 hours) 

AHRI max tech 

(% below 

baseline) 

DOE NOPR max 

tech 

(% below 

baseline) 

Max available 

(% below 

baseline) 

DOE final rule 

max tech 

(% below 

baseline) 

IMH–W–Small–B .................................... 300 18 29 19 24 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.22—COMPARISON OF AHRI MAX TECH LEVELS WITH DOE NOPR AND FINAL RULE MAX TECH LEVELS— 

Continued 

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

(lb ice/24 hours) 

AHRI max tech 

(% below 

baseline) 

DOE NOPR max 

tech 

(% below 

baseline) 

Max available 

(% below 

baseline) 

DOE final rule 

max tech 

(% below 

baseline) 

IMH–W–Med–B ...................................... 850 18 21 14 18 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 ............................... 1500 15 17 5 8 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ............................... 2600 14 15 2.5 7 

IMH–A–Small–B ..................................... 300 19 31 19 26 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 ................................ 800 25 29 16 16 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 ................................ 1500 18 20 6 12 

RCU–NRC–Large–B–1 .......................... 1500 16 21 16 17 

RCU–NRC–Large–B–2 .......................... 2400 18 21 15 14 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................... 300 30 30 28 30 

SCU–A–Small–B .................................... 110 39 39 31 33 

SCU–A–Large–B ................................... 200 35 35 26 29 

IMH–A–Small–C .................................... 310 26 31 28 26 

IMH–A–Large–C .................................... 820 30 30 36 23 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................... 110 28 28 24 27 

In response to AHRI’s comment that 

the FREEZE model has been proven to 

be invalid, DOE notes that this comment 

is based on tests illustrating the ice 

maker efficiency improvement 

associated with two examples of switch 

to higher-EER compressors. AHRI points 

to only one of the design options 

considered in the DOE’s analysis, for 

which DOE updated its analysis. DOE 

has modified its treatment of 

compressors in the analysis, basing the 

calculation of ice maker efficiency 

improvement on test data provided both 

by the AHRI comment and other data 

provided confidentially by 

manufacturers to DOE’s contractor. 

Based on the data DOE reviewed, the ice 

maker energy use reduction associated 

with improvement in compressor EER 

averages 57 percent of the compressor 

energy use reduction expected based on 

the EER improvement—DOE used this 

ratio for its analysis of batch ice makers 

for the final rule. Hence, this particular 

issue with the engineering analysis has 

been addressed through changes in 

DOE’s approach in both the NODA and 

final rule analyses. 

3. Design Options 

After conducting the screening 

analysis and removing from 

consideration the technologies 

described above, DOE considered the 

inclusion of the remaining technologies 

as design options in the final rule 

engineering analysis. The technologies 

that were considered in the engineering 

analysis are listed in Table IV.23, with 

indication of the equipment classes to 

which they apply. 

a. Design Options That Need Cabinet 

Growth 

Some of the design options 

considered by DOE in its technology 

assessment could require an increased 

cabinet size. Examples of such design 

options include increasing the surface 

area of the evaporator or condenser, or 

both. Larger heat exchangers would 

enable the refrigerant circuit to operate 

with an increased evaporating 

temperature and a decreased 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER28JA15.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4685 

condensing temperature, thus reducing 

the temperature lift imposed on the 

refrigeration system and hence the 

compressor power input. In some cases 

the added refrigerant charge associated 

with increasing heat exchanger size 

could also necessitate the installation of 

a refrigerant receiver to ensure proper 

refrigerant charge management in all 

operating conditions for which the unit 

is designed, thus increasing the need for 

larger cabinet size. 

In the preliminary analysis, DOE did 

not consider design options that 

increase cabinet size. However, in the 

NOPR DOE changed the approach and 

considered design options that increase 

cabinet size for certain equipment 

classes: IMH–W–Small–B, IMH–A– 

Small–B, IMH–A–Large–B (800 lb ice/24 

hours representative capacity), and 

IMH–A–Small–C. DOE only applied 

these design options for those 

equipment classes where the 

representative baseline unit had space 

to grow relative to the largest units on 

the market. DOE also considered size 

increase for the remote condensers of 

RCU classes. 

In response to the March 2014 NOPR, 

several manufacturers noted that the 

size of icemakers is limited in certain 

applications. Manitowoc commented 

that not all end users can accept larger 

or taller ice-making cabinets. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 133) Ice-O-Matic 

commented that customers want ice 

machines that are able to produce more 

ice in a smaller physical space and that 

such ice makers will be difficult to make 

if standards necessitate design options 

that require cabinet growth. (Ice-OMatic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

70 at p. 29–31) 

Scotsman and AHRI both noted that 

cabinet size increases would require 

users to either enlarge the space in the 

kitchen to accommodate a larger unit or 

to repair older ice makers rather than 

buying new ones or to make due with 

a smaller capacity ice maker. (AHRI, No. 

93 at p. 7–8; Scotsman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 126–127) 

Manitowoc, Ice-O-Matic, and AHRI each 

stated that incorporating design options 

that may increase the size of automatic 

commercial ice makers will increase the 

likelihood that consumers refurbish 

rather than replace their existing units. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 129–130; Ice-O-Matic, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

32–33; AHRI, No. 93 at p. 7–8) 

Scotsman, Manitowoc and Follett all 

agreed that large ice makers would have 

an impact in installation costs. 

(Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 5b–6b; 

Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 3; Follett, No. 

84 at p. 6) Follett commented that 

maintenance costs will increase because 

larger components will reduce 

serviceability and energy-efficient 

components, such as a lower 

horsepower auger motor, may not be as 

robust. (Follet, No. 70 at p. 132–133) 

AHRI commented that design options 

which increase chassis size should not 

be considered for IMH–A–Small–B, 

IMH–A–Large–B, IMH–W–Small–B, and 

IMH–W–Med–B classes, as 22-inch 

units wide units account for 18% of all 

ice makers sold in the US. AHRI added 

that if design options which increase 

cabinet size are not screened out for 

these product classes, there will likely 

be an adverse impact on product 

availability. (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 4) 

In contrast, PGE/SDG&E commented 

that they support DOE’s decision to 

include in the engineering analysis 

design options that increase chassis 

size. (PG&E and SDG&E, No. 89 at p. 3) 

The Joint Commenters expressed their 

belief that DOE has appropriately 

considered size increases in their 

engineering analysis and that those 

customers who have smaller units today 

could purchase a taller unit with the 

same capacity, a smaller-capacity unit, 

or two smaller-capacity units. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 87 at p. 3) 

In response to the NODA analysis, CA 

IOU stated their support of DOE 

including technically (DOE interprets 

this to mean technologically) feasible 

design options that may increase chassis 

sizes in certain cases. (CA IOU, No. 129 

at p. 2) 

DOE recognizes that the size of ice 

makers is limited in certain 

applications. DOE notes that many of 

the equipment classes analyzed do not 

require any cabinet growth to reach 

higher efficiency levels. DOE considered 

design options involving package size 

increase for IMH–A–Large–B, IMH–A– 

Small–B, and IMH–W–Med units. For 

the final rule analyses, DOE did not 

consider design options which 

necessitate a cabinet size increase for 

IMH–A–Small–C units. DOE adjusted 

the analysis of installation costs to 

consider the impact of added costs 

associated with renovation to 

accommodate size increase for the few 

equipment classes for which DOE did 

consider size increase. The life cycle 

cost analysis, described in section 

IV.G.2 details how these added 

installation costs were considered in the 

analysis. 

Table IV.24 lists the equipment 

classes for which DOE considered 

design options that involve increase in 

chassis size in the final rule analysis. 

TABLE IV.24—ANALYZED EQUIPMENT CLASSES WHERE DOE ANALYZED SIZE-INCREASING DESIGN OPTIONS IN THE FINAL

RULE ANALYSIS

Unit Harvest capacity 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: ‘‘XXX’’ refers to ‘‘RC’’ or ‘‘NRC’’ for each of the entries with ‘‘XXX’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4686 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

b. Improved Condenser Performance 

During the NOPR analysis, DOE 

considered size increase for the 

condenser to reduce condensing 

temperature and compressor power 

input. DOE requested comment on use 

of this design option and on the 

difficulty of implementing it in ice 

makers with size constraints. 

Follet commented that 10 °F is the 

practical limit for the temperature 

difference between the ambient air and 

the hot gas in the condenser. Follet 

added that it is possible to increase the 

surface area, but either no meaningful 

efficiency is gained, or the size of the 

condenser would have to increase to the 

point that it would not fit into tight 

spaces. (Follet, No. 84 at p. 5) 

DOE did not consider any condenser 

sizes that would result in condensing 

temperatures as close as 10 °F to the 

ambient temperatures for air-cooled 

icemakers. 

Stakeholders AHRI, Hoshizaki, Follet, 

and Ice-O-Matic noted that improved 

condenser performance would likely 

require an increase in cabinet size. 

(AHRI, No. 93 at p. 4; Hoshizaki, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 128– 

129; Ice-O-Matic, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 32–33; Follet, 

No. 84 at p. 5) 

In response to concerns about the 

potential need to increase cabinet size to 

make space for larger condensers, DOE 

agrees that increasing condenser size 

may require also increasing cabinet size. 

DOE has limited cabinet size increases 

to just three equipment classes, IMH–A– 

Large–B, IMH–A–Small–B, and IMH– 

W–Small–B. Furthermore, the specific 

size increases considered for these ice 

makers do not involve size increase 

beyond the size of ice makers that are 

currently being sold. The specific size 

increases considered are presented in 

Chapter 5 of the TSD. In addition, the 

life cycle cost analysis considers 

additional installation cost associated 

with a proportion of ice makers sold as 

replacements that, with the new larger 

sizes, will not fit in the existing spaces 

where the old ice makers are located 

(see section IV.G.2.a). 

Manitowoc commented regarding 

condenser size increase for water-cooled 

ice makers that increasing water-cooled 

surface area can reduce the condensing 

temperature and cause the ice machine 

to be unable to harvest the ice at low 

inlet water temperature conditions, 

which affects the performance of models 

in northern regions. (Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 108– 

110) 

DOE is aware that increasing 

condenser surface area may have an 

impact on the ice machine’s ability to 

harvest ice. As discussed in the NOPR, 

DOE generally avoided consideration of 

very low condensing temperatures in its 

analysis, using 101 °F as a guideline 

lower limit. The analysis also 

considered the increase in harvest cycle 

energy use—Section IV.D.4 describes 

how the longer harvest times were 

addressed in the engineering analysis. 

Manitowoc noted that the NODA EL3 

level for the RCU–NRC–B2 equipment 

class assumes a 19-inch increase in 

condenser width with an additional 

condenser row. Manitowoc asserted that 

an increase this large could lead to 

significant refrigerant charge issues. 

Therefore, Manitowoc suggested that 

NODA EL2 be selected for this 

equipment class. (Manitowoc, No. 126 

at p. 2) 

In the final rule DOE modified the 

engineering analysis for this class and 

has eliminated one of the two condenser 

size increase steps in the final rule 

engineering analysis. DOE notes that the 

final condenser size is still smaller on 

the basis of refrigerant volume per 

harvest capacity rate than the largest 

remote condenser for an RCU ice maker 

observed in DOE’s review of units 

purchased for reverse engineering. 

Therefore, DOE has confidence that the 

refrigerant management challenges are 

manageable for the maximum condenser 

size considered in the analysis. 

Manitowoc also noted that adding a 

condenser row in the SCU–A–Small–B 

class may not be possible due to the 

small volume available in the compact 

chassis required for these models. 

Similarly, a 9’’ increase in condenser 

width for the SCU–A–Large–B may be 

unrealistic. (Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 2) 

In selecting these design options, DOE 

reviewed the spatial constraints and 

condenser sizes within both reverseengineered units used as the basis for 

energy use calculations for these classes. 

While the space underneath the ice 

storage bins of these units is limited in 

height, there is sufficient room for the 

width and depth increases that DOE 

considered. Based on data gathered from 

these teardowns, DOE concluded that 

these condenser size design options 

were feasible for these units. 

c. Compressors 

Several interested parties provided 

comment regarding the feasibility of 

incorporating more efficient 

compressors in ACIMs. AHRI urged 

DOE to reevaluate the feasibility of 

implementing more efficient 

compressors into the IMH–A–Small–C 

product class, which Follett has found 

are too small to fit larger compressors. 

(AHRI, No. 93 at p. 4) Follett also 

individually commented that they 

independently evaluated a more 

efficient compressor for IMH–A–Small– 

C and that its size made it infeasible 

given the restrictions of the Follett 

chassis. (Follet, No. 84 at p. 8) 

In response to AHRI and Follet’s 

assertion that higher efficiency 

compressors may not fit within the 

chassis of IMH–A–Small–C, DOE’s 

analysis of this class was based on use 

of a Copeland RST45C1E–CAV 

compressor, which is no larger than the 

compressor used in the model upon 

which DOE based the analysis. Hence, 

DOE concluded that use of this higherefficiency compressor would not require 

an increase in the package size. DOE 

notes that it did avoid consideration of 

the highest-efficiency compressors for 

22-inch wide classes when these 

compressors clearly are physically 

larger than the available space allows. In 

particular, DOE did not consider use of 

high-efficiency Bristol compressor in 

these cases, because Bristol compressors 

are generally larger than other available 

compressors. 

Several commenters, including AHRI, 

NEEA, Danfoss, and Ice-O-Matic each 

noted that the harvest process of 

automatic commercial ice makers needs 

to be considered when evaluating 

increased compressor efficiency as a 

design option. (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 4; 

NEEA, No. 91 at p.1; Danfoss, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 152– 

153; Ice-O-Matic, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 160–161) 

Danfoss and Ice-O-Matic commented 

that ice machines differ significantly 

from other compressor-based 

applications in that, when harvesting 

ice, it is desirable to have a less efficient 

compressor because the waste heat 

helps harvest the ice. (Danfoss, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 152– 

153; Ice-O-Matic, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 160–161) 

In response, DOE has adjusted its 

calculation of energy savings associated 

with improved compressor efficiency in 

the NODA and final rule analyses. 

Specifically, DOE considered all 

available data for tests involving 

compressor replacement for batch ice 

makers. This included the two examples 

provided in AHRI’s NOPR comment. 

(AHRI, No. 93 at pp. 25–30) It also 

included information provided 

confidentially to DOE’s contractor. DOE 

reviewed the data to determine if it 

could be used to robustly predict any 

trends of ice maker performance 

impacts compared with compressor EER 

improvements that might vary as a 

function of key parameters such as ice 

maker class, capacity, compressor 

manufacturer, but no such trends were 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4687 

evident. DOE used the data to develop 

an estimate of ice maker energy use 

reduction as a fraction of compressor 

energy use reduction—this value 

averaged 0.57 for the data set. DOE used 

this factor to calculate ice maker energy 

use reduction for all of the batch 

analyses for the NODA and final rule. 

Applying this approach significantly 

reduced the energy savings associated 

with improved-EER compressors for 

batch ice makers in the NODA and final 

rule analyses. 

Howe commented that variable-speed 

compressors are most effective at saving 

energy under part-load conditions, 

which is not taken into account in the 

DOE test procedure. Therefore, such 

components would be operating at or 

near maximum capacity during DOE 

tests, thus canceling their positive 

measurable benefit. (Howe, No. 88 at p. 

1) 

In response to Howe’s comment 

regarding variable speed compressors, 

DOE did not consider the use of 

variable-speed compressors in the 

analysis. 

Several interested parties submitted 

additional concerns about the feasibility 

of implementing design options 

involving increases in compressor 

efficiency. NAFEM commented that 

high-efficiency compressor motors for 

automatic commercial ice makers will 

not be available for the foreseeable 

future and that the investment required 

was not available for products with 

shipments as low as automatic 

commercial ice makers (150,000/year) 

and that DOE must account for their 

unavailability in its analysis. (NAFEM, 

No. 82 at p. 10) 

In response, DOE considered only 

compressors that are currently offered 

for use by compressor manufacturers. 

All of the compressors considered in the 

analysis are currently commercially 

available and are acceptable for use in 

ice makers as indicated by 

manufacturers in confidential 

discussions with DOE’s contractor. 

Hence, DOE does not need to consider 

the development of new compressors 

with higher-efficiency motors. The 

compressors considered in the analysis 

are listed in the compressor database. 

(Compressor Database, No. 135) 

In response to the NODA, Manitowoc 

noted that the RCU–NRC–B1 equipment 

class assumes an increase in compressor 

EER of 20% which Manitowoc stated 

could not be achieved without resorting 

to radical design changes and possibly 

the use of permanent magnet motor 

technology. (Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3) 

Additionally, Manitowoc stated that for 

SCU–A–Small–B and SCU–Large–B, 

increases in compressor EER of 40% 

and 25%, respectively, are unlikely to 

be achieved. (Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 

2) 

For the RCU–NRC–Large–B–1 class, 

DOE based the analysis on a unit with 

a compressor having a rated EER of 7.16 

Btu/Wh. In order to represent baseline 

performance, a less-efficient available 

compressor was used in the analysis. 

For the final rule, DOE modified its 

analysis to reflect a lower efficiency 

level for the unit which is the basis of 

the analysis. Hence, DOE has reduced 

the compressor EER improvement 

considered for this class from 20 percent 

to 10.7 percent. 

For the SCU–A–Small–B class, DOE 

based the analysis on an ice maker 

having a compressor with a rated EER 

of 3.3 Btu/Wh. The analysis considered 

use of an available compressor having a 

rated EER of 4.6 Btu/Wh, a 39 percent 

improvement. Compressors having both 

these levels of EER exist, and hence the 

39 percent improvement in EER from 

3.3 to 4.6 can be achieved. 

For the SCU–A–Large–B class, DOE 

based the analysis on an ice maker 

model having a compressor with a rated 

EER of 4.68 Btu/Wh. DOE modeled the 

baseline by considering a lower EER of 

4.23 Btu/Wh. Compressors within the 

appropriate capacity range at this EER 

level do exist. The highest-EER 

considered for this analysis is 5.2 Btu/ 

Wh, which is achieved by an available 

compressor of appropriate capacity— 

this represents 23 percent improvement 

in EER, slightly less than the cited 25 

percent. Compressors having both these 

levels of EER considered in the analysis 

exist, and hence the 23 percent 

improvement in EER from 4.23 to 5.2 

can be achieved. 

In response to the NODA analysis for 

equipment class SCU–A–Small–C, AHRI 

noted that DOE increased the ‘‘percent 

energy use reduction’’ from 8.5% in the 

NOPR to 10.91% in the NODA for the 

same design option, ‘‘Changed 

compressor EER from 4.7 to 5.5’’. AHRI 

requested that DOE provide justification 

for this change. (AHRI, No. 128 at p.3) 

In the NODA, DOE had calculated 

continuous ice maker percentage 

savings as 75% of the compressor 

energy savings (0.75 × (1¥4.7/5.5) = 

0.109), rather than using the results of 

the FREEZE model to represent the 

compressor energy savings. However, 

the ice maker upon which the SCU–A– 

Small–C analysis was based has a 

greater proportion of auger and fan 

energy use than typical continuous 

units. Hence, DOE agrees that an 

increase in the savings projection to 

10.9% is unrealistic, and has changed 

the projection. 

For the final rule analysis, DOE also 

did not use the FREEZE model, and 

instead assumed that the compressor 

energy use reduction would be 5% less 

than would be expected, based on the 

EER increase. The compressor energy 

use for the unit started at 72% of unit 

energy use, and the design options 

considered prior to consideration of the 

improved-EER compressor already 

reduced energy use to 90.7% of baseline 

energy use. Hence, DOE recalculated the 

savings for this design option as 0.95 × 

(1¥4.7/5.5) × 0.72 × 0.907 = 0.09 = 9%. 

d. Evaporator 

Follett commented that increasing the 

length or width of continuous type 

evaporators would increase cabinet size. 

(Follet, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

70 at p. 90–91) Follett also commented 

that increasing the height of the 

continuous type evaporator is not 

feasible because, in 75% of Follett’s 

automatic commercial ice makers, the 

evaporator is horizontal. Therefore, any 

evaporator growth would increase the 

icemaker footprint so that it could no 

longer fit on standard beverage 

dispensers. (Follett, No. 84 at p. 5–6) 

DOE notes that it did not consider 

evaporator size increase as a design 

option for continuous ice makers in the 

final rule engineering analysis. 

In response to the NODA, AHRI noted 

that IMH–W–Small–C units typically 

use the same chassis as their IMH–A– 

Small–B counterparts and should also 

be considered as space constrained 

units. Specifically, AHRI recommended 

screening out the increased evaporator 

size for this product class on the basis 

that the chassis could not withstand the 

corresponding 4-inch increase in width. 

AHRI added that if evaporator size 

increase option is kept for IMH–W– 

Small–C units, a more realistic cost 

must be associated with this design 

option. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 2) 

In response to AHRI’s comment, DOE 

notes that the typical use of the same 

cabinet as IMH–A–Small–B does not 

mean there is no possible cabinet size 

increase. Nevertheless DOE has 

eliminated this design option step from 

the analysis for the IMH–A–Small–C. 

The evaporator size increase was 

considered in the NOPR analysis in 

conjunction with a condenser size 

increase. In the final rule analysis, this 

step in the analysis now considers only 

the condenser size increase. 

AHRI stated in its NODA comments 

that an 18 percent size increase in 

evaporator area cannot reasonably be 

implemented in 22-inch IMH–A–Small– 

B units. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 2). DOE 

developed its 22-inch IMH–A–Small–B 

analysis by removing from the 30-inch 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4688 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

chassis analysis for IMH–A–Small–B 

those design options that would not fit 

in a 22-inch chassis. The baseline 

evaporator used in the model upon 

which DOE based this analysis has a 

plate area that is relatively small. Hence, 

the 18 percent size increase can fit 

within the chassis of a 22-inch unit. In 

fact, the maximum-available 22-inch 

unit of this class has an evaporator that 

is somewhat larger than the largest 

evaporator size considered for the 

analysis. Hence, DOE concludes that it 

did not consider excessive increase in 

evaporator size for the 22-inch IMH–A– 

Small–B analysis. 

In response to the NODA, Manitowoc 

stated that for IMH–A–Small–B units, a 

51% increase in evaporator surface area 

is not always possible in the chassis 

sizes used in the industry and 

concluded that the max efficiency level 

that should be considered is EL3. 

(Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees that the design option 

mentioned by Manitowoc, a 51% 

increase in evaporator surface area for 

IMH–A–Small–B units would require a 

growth in cabinet size. Consequently, 

DOE considered such a growth in the 

engineering analysis. DOE notes that the 

NODA TSL 3 efficiency level for this 

class, 18% less energy than baseline, 

can be achieved with an evaporator 

growth less than 51%—DOE estimates 

that this would require evaporator size 

growth of 38%. 

Manitowoc stated that the IMH-small 

class would likely require chassis 

growth to add evaporator area. 

(Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 2). DOE 

assumes that this refers to the IMH–W– 

Small–B class and agrees that some 

increase in chassis size may be required 

to support increases in evaporator size. 

DOE notes that IMH–W–Small–B is one 

of the classes for which DOE considered 

increase in chassis size. 

e. Interconnectedness of Automatic 

Commercial Ice Maker System 

Several commenters noted that the 

addition of a certain design option may 

necessitate an alteration in the 

remaining automatic commercial ice 

maker components. AHRI stated their 

concern with DOE’s component 

analysis, noting that a change in one 

component impacts other components 

and therefore the entire price and 

efficiency of the entire automatic 

commercial ice maker system. (AHRI, 

No. 128 at p. 2) Similarly, Scotsman 

stated that the manufacture product cost 

increase estimates do not account for 

system impacts when components are 

changed. In most cases it is inaccurate 

to estimate product cost changes by 

specific component as changing any 

component within the refrigeration 

system will require changes to other 

components in order to optimize 

performance efficiency. (Scotsman, No. 

125 at p. 2) Similarly, Howe commented 

that component efficiency increases are 

not additive and not necessarily 

proportional when used in combination. 

(Howe, No. 88 at p. 2) 

As explained in the NOPR, DOE had 

attempted to conduct an efficiency-level 

analysis rather than a design-option 

approach. However, the efficiency-level 

analysis did not produce consistent 

results, in some cases indicating that 

higher-efficiency units are less 

expensive. Therefore, DOE went 

forward with the design option 

approach and solicited comments from 

interested parties regarding the impact a 

specific design option may have on the 

entire system. DOE’s contractor received 

some information regarding the 

potentially higher costs associated with 

change of some components, for which 

it may have underestimated overall cost 

increase in the NOPR phase—this 

information has been incorporated into 

the final rule analysis. However, absent 

more specific information regarding 

these interactions, DOE cannot 

speculate on other changes that may 

have been appropriate to address this 

issue. 

Manitowoc commented that putting a 

larger evaporator in an ice machine 

would increase refrigerant charge, thus 

necessitating an accumulator, or 

rendering a compressor unreliable 

during harvest. Such a change would 

also increase the mass of the evaporator, 

thus requiring more energy to heat it up 

and cool it back down. (Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

142–143) 

DOE has not considered evaporator 

sizes (on the basis of evaporator size per 

ice maker capacity in lb ice/24 hours) 

larger than those of ice makers on the 

market. DOE has not observed use of 

accumulators and hence concludes that 

the evaporator sizes considered would 

not require one. While Manitowoc 

commented in the NOPR public meeting 

on the potential for added harvest time 

or harvest energy use for larger 

evaporators, they did not provide details 

in written comments showing how this 

effect might impact savings associated 

with larger evaporators. DOE notes that 

a larger evaporator would operate with 

warmer evaporating temperature during 

the freeze cycle, and this effect would 

reduce the heat required to warm the 

evaporator during the harvest cycle. 

Without data to quantify this effect, 

DOE’s analysis assumed that harvest 

energy use would scale proportionally 

with evaporator area. Hence, the 

increase in mass of the evaporator has 

been accounted for in the estimation of 

the energy use reduction associated 

with the design option. 

Follett commented that the 

evaporator, auger motor, and 

compressor must all be sized to balance 

one another and that these components 

cannot easily be swapped out for other 

off-the-shelf components. (Follett, No. 

84 at p. 5) Follett noted that increasing 

evaporator diameter is not feasible 

because it will increase the required 

torque, necessitating a larger motor that 

will draw more power and negate any 

efficiency gains. (Follet, No. 84 at p. 6) 

DOE is no longer considering 

evaporator size increase as a design 

option for continuous ice makers. 

However, DOE notes that the 

engineering analysis has attempted to 

consider the interconnectedness of the 

system components wherever possible. 

For example, for air cooled condenser 

growth, fan power was increased to 

maintain a constant airflow through a 

larger condenser. 

Hoshizaki commented that there is a 

lot of trial and error involved in pairing 

compressors with condensers while 

maintaining machine reliability. 

(Hoshizaki, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 159–160) 

DOE realizes that there may be trial 

and error when pairing components. 

DOE solicited feedback from 

manufactures regarding the 

appropriateness of the use of specific 

compressors in the analysis. DOE did 

not identify any specific limitations in 

compressor/condenser pairings that it 

considered in its analysis in any 

comments or in interviews with 

manufacturers. 

4. Cost Assessment Methodology 

In this rulemaking, DOE has adopted 

a combined efficiency level, design 

option, and reverse engineering 

approaches to develop cost-efficiency 

curves. To support this effort, DOE 

developed manufacturing cost models 

based heavily on reverse engineering of 

products to create a baseline MPC. DOE 

estimated the energy use of different 

design configurations using an energy 

model with input data based on reverse 

engineering, automatic commercial ice 

maker performance ratings, and test 

data. DOE combined the manufacturing 

cost and energy modeling to develop 

cost-efficiency curves for automatic 

commercial ice maker equipment based 

to the extent possible on baselineefficiency equipment selected to 

represent their equipment classes (in 

some cases, analyses were based on 

equipment with efficiency levels higher 

than baseline). Next, DOE derived 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4689 

manufacturer markups using publicly 

available automatic commercial ice 

maker industry financial data, in 

conjunction with manufacturer 

feedback. The markups were used to 

convert the MPC-based cost-efficiency 

curves into Manufacturer Selling Price 

(MSP)-based curves. 

The engineering analyses are 

summarized in an ‘‘Engineering 

Results’’ spreadsheet, developed 

initially for the NOPR phase (NOPR 

Engineering Results Spreadsheet, No. 

59). This document was modified for 

the NODA (Engineering Analysis 

Spreadsheet—NODA, No. 112) and 

subsequently for the final rule (Final 

Rule Engineering Analysis Spreadsheet, 

No. 134) 

Stakeholder comments regarding 

DOE’s NOPR and NODA engineering 

analyses addressed the following broad 

areas: 

1. Estimated costs in many cases were 

lower than manufacturers’ actual costs. 

2. Estimated efficiency benefits of 

many modeled design options were 

greater than the actual benefits, 

according to manufacturers’ experience 

with equipment development. 

3. DOE should validate its energy use 

model based on comparison with actual 

equipment test data. 

These topics are addressed in greater 

detail in the sections below. 

a. Manufacturing Cost 

In response to the manufacturer costs 

presented in the NOPR, several 

stakeholders indicated that the 

incremental costs presented in the 

NOPR were optimistic. Specifically, 

AHRI, Follet, Manitowoc, and Danfoss 

stated the belief that DOE 

underestimated the incremental costs of 

its proposed design options. (AHRI, No. 

93 at p. 4; Follet, No. 84 at p. 5; Danfoss, 

No. 72 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 98 at p. 

1–2) 

Scotsman commented that their data 

on the efficiency and costs associated 

with compressor upgrade, BLDC motors, 

larger heat exchangers, and drain water 

heat exchangers do not match the 

assumptions used by DOE in its 

analysis. (Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 4b) 

Manitowoc commented that DOE 

significantly underestimates the cost 

associated with heat exchanger growth, 

higher compressor EER, and highefficiency fan and pump motors. 

(Manitowoc, No. 98 at p. 1–2) 

Manitowoc also noted that their costs 

were not consistent with those found in 

the TSD, particularly in cases involving 

evaporator or cabinet growth 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 116–117) 

DOE has revised and updated its 

analysis based on data provided in 

comments and made available through 

non-disclosure agreements. These 

updates included changes in its 

approach to calculating the energy use 

associated with groups of design 

options, changes in inputs for 

calculations of energy use, and changes 

in calculated equipment manufacturing 

cost. Comments related to the 

manufacturing costs of specific design 

options are described in the sections 

below. 

NAFEM and Hoshizaki stated that the 

cost curves were not analyzed to 

demonstrate what can be achieved in 

five years. (NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 2; 

Hoshizaki, No. 123 at p. 1) 

In response to NAFEM and 

Hoshizaki’s comment, DOE notes that 

the costs in the cost curves are intended 

to be representative of today’s 

technology and current market prices. 

Compressor Costs 

AHRI, Danfoss, and Hoshizaki stated 

that DOE’s assumption that a 10% 

compressor efficiency increase could be 

achieved for a 5% price increase is 

flawed. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 20–21; Danfoss, 

No. 72 at p. 3; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 

9) AHRI and Danfoss stated that a more 

realistic assumption would be a 1–2% 

efficiency improvement for a 5% price 

increase. (Danfoss, No. 72 at p. 3; AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

20–21) AHRI and NAFEM both 

requested that the relationship between 

cost and compressor EER should be 

corrected to reflect the approach 

adopted by the final CRE rulemaking. 

(AHRI, No. 93 at p. 15; NAFEM, No. 82 

at p. 4–5) Follet also asserted that it is 

unrealistic to assume that the full 

efficiency gain of a more efficient 

compressor will be realized at the costs 

assumed by DOE in the NOPR. (Follet, 

No. 84 at p. 5) In response to the NODA, 

AHRI stated that there was no 

explanation as to why the compressor 

costs changed as compared to the 

NOPR. AHRI noted that the NODA 

compressor costs were still not 

consistent with the approach used in 

the CRE rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 128 at 

p. 2) 

DOE maintains its position that the 

cost-EER relationship used in the CRE 

rulemaking was based on future 

improvements over existing EER levels. 

For example, the CRE final rule 

indicates that ‘‘manufacturers and 

consumers expressed concern over 

DOE’s assumptions regarding the 

advances in compressor technology 

anticipated before the compliance date.’’ 

79 FR 17726, 17760 (March 28, 2014). 

Compressor suppliers and OEMs 

commented that, ‘‘if a 10% compressor 

efficiency improvement were possible 

for a 5% cost increase, then it is most 

likely that manufacturers would have 

already adopted this technology’’. Id. 

The statement implies that 

manufacturers have not adopted the 

technology. In the automatic 

commercial ice maker NOPR public 

meeting, Danfoss, a compressor 

supplier, commented, ‘‘these are mature 

technologies. They’ve been around 50 or 

60 years. If that sort of efficiency 

improvement could be made available, 

it would have . . . we would have 

already done it.’’ The comments 

insinuate that DOE was contemplating 

use of a technology that is not available 

and that the compressor manufacturers 

have not used. For the automatic 

commercial ice maker analysis, DOE did 

not consider future technologies. Rather, 

it considered only compressor options 

that are currently being offered by 

compressor suppliers. In some cases, 

baseline ice makers are using 

compressors with relatively low 

efficiencies compared to the levels that 

are available. It is for these cases that 

DOE has been projecting the possibility 

of large potential for compressor 

efficiency improvements. DOE has 

requested compressor cost data that 

would allow evaluation of the 

relationship between actual prices paid 

by automatic commercial ice maker 

manufacturers for the compressors and 

the EER levels of the compressors, 

indicating that this data might be 

provided confidentially to DOE’s 

contractor. However, sufficient cost data 

to allow a regression analysis to 

determine the efficiency-cost 

relationship has not been made 

available. Based on limited data 

supplied confidentially to DOE’s 

contractor during the NOPR phase, DOE 

initially concluded that cost does not 

vary significantly with EER. In addition, 

DOE received some feedback during 

interviews with manufacturers that the 

10% improvement for 5% cost 

relationship is reasonable. DOE at that 

time adopted this relationship in order 

to avoid projecting zero cost increase 

associated with EER increase. 

Nevertheless, DOE has modified its 

approach to calculating improvement in 

compressor efficiency to consider the 

stakeholders’ comments. The analysis 

calculates the cost associated with 

compressor EER improvement in two 

ways and uses the higher of these costs. 

The first approach is the 10% 

improvement for 5% cost used in the 

NOPR analysis. The second approach 

applies the 5% cost associated with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4690 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2% improvement that the commenters 

cited, which DOE applied to the 

analysis as if the last 2% of compressor 

efficiency improvement is future 

efficiency improvement that would cost 

the cited 5%. For example, if the 

compressor efficiency improvement is 

10%, this approach treated the first 8% 

of efficiency improvement to be 

associated with currently available 

compressors with no cost differences, 

and the last 2% (from 8% to 10% 

improvement) as being associated with 

future compressor improvement with a 

5% cost premium. 

Follett disputed the NOPR 

engineering result that showed a 20% 

decrease in energy use at a cost of $61 

for the IMH–A–Large–C class. Follet 

noted that at an incremental cost of $60, 

they tested a unit utilizing an ECM 

motor and a compressor with a 5% 

increase in efficiency, but were only 

able to achieve a 9% decrease in energy 

use. (Follet, No. 84 at p. 8) AHRI also 

noted this work, indicating that Follett 

experienced less than half the efficiency 

gain predicted by DOE in the NOPR 

when switching from an SPM to an ECM 

motor and using a compressor with a 

5% higher EER. AHRI further noted 

that, while DOE’s analysis considered a 

24% improvement in compressor EER, 

the best compressor that Follett was able 

to find improved the EER only 5%. 

(AHRI, No. 93 at p. 4) 

DOE notes that these comments do 

not indicate the initial energy use of the 

tested unit, only that the 9 percent 

efficiency improvement was insufficient 

to attain the NOPR-proposed efficiency 

level. Further, the comments do not 

indicate the initial EER of the 

compressor used in the Follett product. 

Since the NOPR phase, DOE has 

adjusted both its energy modeling as 

well as its cost estimates, so as to 

mitigate this issue. Based on new data 

collected through the NODA and final 

rule phases, DOE has completed new 

cost efficiency curves, such that the 

MSP increase for the final rule analysis 

associated with a 20% decrease in 

energy use for the IMH–A–Large–C class 

is $488. The increase is so large because, 

for the final rule analysis, use of design 

options other than a permanent magnet 

gear motor to power the auger increase 

efficiency less than 20% (roughly 18%), 

and the estimated cost of the higherefficiency auger motor is very high. 

While it is difficult to determine 

whether the analysis is fully consistent 

with Follett’s test data, DOE believes 

that its revised analysis sufficiently 

addresses this issue (the cost per 

percent improvement for the analysis is 

now $24/% ($488/20%), whereas the 

cost per percent improvement for 

Follett’s cited experience is $7/% ($60/ 

9%)). DOE does note that this Follett 

example does show that continuous ice 

machines experience energy use 

reductions at least consistent with the 

compressor efficiency improvements— 

Follett did not indicate the reduction in 

motor input wattage when switching 

from the shaded pole to the ECM motor, 

but if the ice maker energy use 

reduction for the motor change was 5%, 

one would conclude that the energy use 

reduction for the compressor change 

was 4%, or 80% of the 5% improvement 

in compressor EER—this contrasts 

markedly with some of the information 

provided in stakeholder comments 

about the relationship between batch ice 

maker energy use and compressor EER 

improvement. (see, e.g., AHRI, No. 93 at 

pp. 25–30) 

Evaporator Costs 

Hoshizaki and Manitowoc stated the 

DOE underestimated the cost of 

increasing the evaporator size in the 

NOPR analysis, for both batch and 

continuous ice makers. Specifically, 

regarding the 50% evaporator size 

increase considered for the IMH–A– 

Small–B analysis, Hoshizaki 

commented that a 50% increase in 

evaporator height would result in a 50% 

MPC increase. (Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 

9) For this design option, DOE 

calculated a $48 cost increase to the 

initial evaporator cost of $88 in the 

NOPR analysis. Manitowoc stated that 

the cost presented in the NOPR for a 

50% larger evaporator is half of what 

they would see as a manufacturer. 

Manitowoc noted that this is partially 

because they only make 4000–5000 

models per year of a particular cabinet 

size and thus do not have as much 

purchasing power as an appliance 

manufacturer. (Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 171– 

174) 

In the NODA and final rule analyses, 

DOE adjusted the costs related to 

increasing the size of the evaporator. 

DOE received information from 

manufacturers through non-disclosure 

agreements regarding the expected costs 

associated with increasing the size of 

the evaporator and has adjusted the 

analysis to reflect the new data. DOE’s 

MPC increase projection for the same 

evaporator size increase for the IMH–A– 

Small–B class is now $101. 

As noted in section IV.D.3.d, AHRI 

commented that a more realistic cost 

estimate is required for the evaporator 

increase design option for IMH–W– 

Small–C units as they often use the 

same chassis as their IMH–A–Small 

counterparts. Specifically, AHRI stated 

that manufacturers have conservatively 

estimated that a 17% increase in 

evaporator size should be 117% percent 

of the original evaporator’s cost. (AHRI, 

No. 128 at p. 2) DOE believes this 

comment may apply to the IMH–A– 

Small–C class rather than IMH–W– 

Small–C, since the 17% evaporator 

growth was considered in the NOPR 

analysis for the air-cooled class. In the 

NOPR phase, DOE calculated an MPC 

increase of $153 for the evaporator size 

increase and a condenser size increase 

considered in the same step of the 

analysis. Seventeen percent of the 

$1,252 contribution to MPC of the initial 

evaporator is $213. 

DOE acknowledges that the 17% 

evaporator growth would require 

chassis size increase for the specific 

model upon which the IMH–A–Small– 

C analysis is based, if implemented by 

increasing the length of the auger/

evaporator. As noted previously, DOE 

modified the analysis and is no longer 

considering evaporator size increases as 

a design option for any continuous 

units, including IMH–W–Small–C. 

In response to the NODA analysis, 

Hoshizaki, AHRI, Manitowoc, and 

NAFEM stated that increasing the 

evaporator by 18% with no chassis 

growth is not possible for 22-inch IMH– 

A–Small–B machines. (Hoshizaki, No. 

124 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 128 at p. 2; 

Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 2; NAFEM, 

No. 123 at p. 2) Hoshizaki added that 

such a change would require tooling, 

panel changes, and kits to fit on the 

machine. Hoshizaki and NAFEM noted 

that these changes would cost more than 

the $34 stated in the NODA. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 124 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 

2) 

DOE reviewed the cabinet size of the 

representative 22-inch IMH–A–Small–B 

unit and found that it had space for an 

18% evaporator increase. DOE notes 

that the final size of the 18% larger 

evaporator considered in the analysis is 

still smaller than evaporators found in 

some 22-inch units of the same 

equipment class. Hence, DOE believes 

that an 18% growth in evaporator size 

is possible and has maintained this 

design option in the final rule. 

Condenser Costs 

Commenting on the NODA analysis 

for the IMH–W–Small–B, Hoshizaki and 

NAFEM stated that increasing the watercooled condenser length by 48% would 

require a larger cost increase than $40 

stated in the NODA. (Hoshizaki, No. 124 

at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 2) 

Hoshizaki noted that they currently are 

using the largest condenser offered by 

their supplier, and increasing its size 

would necessitate a special design. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 124 at p. 2) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4691 

In the NODA phase, DOE evaluated a 

48% condenser size increase for the 

representative IMH–W–Small–B unit of 

22-inch width—based on a review of 

typical coaxial water-cooled condenser 

offerings from typical suppliers of these 

units, DOE has concluded that this 

might be a non-standard size watercooled condenser. In the final rule 

analysis for this unit, DOE has adjusted 

its water-cooled condenser options to be 

more consistent with standard 

condenser sizes, based on review of 

commercially available components. 

Therefore, for the IMH–W–Small–B, 22 

inch wide unit, DOE adjusted the 

analysis to instead utilize a 59% larger 

condenser. The estimated MPC increase 

for this design option in the final rule 

analysis is $58. 

Regarding the NODA analysis for the 

IMH–A–Small–C, Hoshizaki stated that 

cost of increasing the evaporator area by 

17% and the condenser height by 4 

inches would be much higher than the 

$150 presented in the NODA. Hoshizaki 

added that 22-inch wide machines 

could not accommodate 4 inches of 

height growth and would require a 

change in chassis. Hoshizaki noted that 

condensers are standard parts from the 

catalogs of suppliers and there are no 

condensers that would match this 

change. (Hoshizaki, No. 124 at p. 2) 

DOE is no longer considering 

evaporator growth for continuous units. 

The representative unit for this 

equipment class has a condenser with 

core height of 10 inches, width of 12 

inches and a depth of 3 inches. The 

chassis height is 217⁄8 inches and the 

chassis width is 22 inches. The 

representative unit has space for the 

condenser size increases considered in 

the analysis. Based on discussions with 

manufacturers and heat exchanger 

suppliers, DOE has found that there is 

flexibility in the design of air-cooled 

condensers, as long as the design 

conforms to the use of standard tube 

pitch (distances between the tubes) 

patterns, fin style, and fin densities. The 

analysis considered no change in these 

design parameters that would make the 

condenser a non-standard design. 

In response to the NODA analysis for 

the SCU–W–Large–B class, AHRI 

commented on the changes in 

condenser size and the associated 

efficiency improvement as compared to 

the NOPR analysis. AHRI noted that in 

the NOPR analysis, DOE considered a 

size increase of 39%, which was 

estimated to reduce energy us use 

11.2%, while in the NODA a condenser 

size increase of 112% led to estimated 

energy savings of 16.7%. AHRI stated 

that such an increase in condenser size 

would cause issues with performance 

outside of rating conditions due to the 

large increase in refrigerant charge. 

AHRI recommended that DOE 

reconsider this design option. (AHRI, 

No. 128 at p. 3) 

In response, DOE modified the 

analysis for the SCU–W–Large–B for the 

final rule analysis, in which DOE 

considers a condenser size increase of 

50%, with associated energy savings of 

5.5%. 

Purchasing Power and Component Costs 

Several commenters noted that the 

scale of the ice maker industry is too 

small to qualify for the price discounts 

seen by the appliance markets on 

specialized parts. (Hoshizaki, No. 86 at 

p. 7–8; Danfoss, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 175–176) 

Danfoss stated that the small scale of the 

industry is a barrier to implementing 

new technologies and that the 

investment necessary to produce highefficiency compressors in these volumes 

is not feasible in the foreseeable future. 

(Danfoss, No. 72 at p. 3–4) 

Scotsman commented that their 

vendors provide ECM motors at 200– 

300% over the cost of baseline motors 

and high-efficiency compressors at up to 

30% over the cost of baseline 

compressors. Scotsman added that they 

have not successfully proven the 

performance and reliability of such 

components in different applications. 

(Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 2) 

Joint Commenters urged DOE to 

determine whether fan, pump, and 

auger motors use ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ or 

custom motors if the former, this would 

suggest that permanent magnet motor 

availability should not be a concern. 

(Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 2–3) 

In response to these comments DOE 

notes that it considers the purchasing 

power of manufacturers in its estimation 

of component cost pricing. DOE has 

significantly revised its component cost 

estimates for the engineering analysis 

for the NODA and ultimately final rule 

phase based on additional information 

obtained in discussions with 

manufacturers as well as in stakeholder 

comments. DOE used the detailed 

feedback to update its cost estimates for 

all ice maker components. 

b. Energy Consumption Model 

As part of the preliminary analysis, 

DOE worked with the developer of the 

FREEZE energy consumption model to 

adapt the model to updated correlations 

for refrigerant heat exchanger 

performance correlations and operation 

in a Windows computer environment. 

Analysis of ice maker performance 

during the preliminary analysis was 

primarily based on the model. During 

the course of the rulemaking, DOE has 

received numerous comments 

describing some of the shortcomings of 

the model. In response, DOE has 

modified its energy use analysis to rely 

less on the FREEZE model and more on 

direct calculation of energy use and 

energy reductions, based on test data 

and on assumptions about the efficiency 

of components such as motors. DOE 

requested that stakeholders provide 

information and data to guide the 

analysis, and also requested comments 

on the component efficiency 

assumptions. DOE received additional 

information through comments and 

confidential information exchange with 

DOE’s contractor that helped guide 

adjustments to the analysis. 

After the NOPR and NODA 

publications, stakeholders continued to 

express concerns about the FREEZE 

model. AHRI questioned the accuracy of 

the FREEZE model. (AHRI, No. 93 at 

p. 5–6, 16) Scotsman noted that the 

FREEZE simulation program may not be 

able to model performance of automatic 

commercial ice makers upon revision of 

the EPA SNAP initiative, which may 

result in use of different refrigerants 

than are currently used in ice makers. 

(Scotsman, No. 125 at p. 2) 

Ice-O-Matic commented that the 

analysis is based on faulty assumptions 

from unrelated rulemakings such as 

commercial refrigeration, and that the 

cycles of ice machines do not resemble 

the cycles of commercial refrigeration 

products. (Ice-O-Matic, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 32) Scotsman 

and Manitowoc stated that the energy 

model may yield unrealistic efficiency 

gains for some of the design options. 

(Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 154–156; Scotsman, No. 125 

at p. 2). Specifically, Manitowoc noted 

that the energy use model significantly 

over-predicts the efficiency gains 

associated with design options, due to 

its inability to account for the harvest 

portion of the icemaking cycle. 

Manitowoc added that many design 

options that reduce freeze-cycle energy 

use increase harvest-cycle energy use. 

(Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 1; Manitowoc, 

No. 126 at p. 1) 

Ice-O-Matic noted that that the 

FREEZE model was designed for fullsize ice cubes and does not work for 

half-size ice cube machines. (Ice-OMatic, No. 121 at p. 2) Full-size cubes 

of the ice maker models primarily 

considered in the analysis generally are 

cubes with dimensions 7⁄8 x 7⁄8 x 7⁄8

inches. Half-size cubes have dimensions 

7⁄8 x 7⁄8 x 3⁄8 inches. 

Howe and Hoshizaki both stated that 

DOE should test its component design 

options in actual units in order to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4692 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

29Compressor performance depends on suction 

(inlet) and discharge (outlet) pressures. These 

pressures are often represented as the saturated 

refrigerant temperatures that correspond to the 

pressures. For the 15/95 conditions, the saturated 

evaporator temperature is 15 °F and the saturated 

condensing temperature is 95 °F (to be technically 

correct, these are represented as dew point 

temperatures for the refrigerant in question, R– 

404A—because there is a range of temperatures at 

a given pressure over which the refrigerant can 

coexist in equilibrium in both liquid and vapor 

phases, the temperature at the high end of this 

range often used). 

validate the FREEZE model. (Howe, No. 

88 at p. 2; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 6) 

AHRI also expressed its concern that 

DOE has not conducted thorough testing 

to validate the efficiency gains 

associated with design options and 

requested that DOE prove the claims 

made in the engineering analysis. 

(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

70 at p. 20–21) 

DOE used the FREEZE energy model 

as a basis to estimate energy savings 

potential associated with design options 

in the early stages of the analysis when 

DOE had limited information. As more 

information was made available to DOE 

through public comments as well as 

non-disclosure agreements with 

manufacturers, DOE modified or 

replaced the results garnered from the 

FREEZE energy model to better reflect 

the new data collected. 

In response to Scotsman’s comment 

regarding the FREEZE model’s ability to 

model the performance of automatic 

commercial ice makers which use 

alternative refrigerants, DOE notes that, 

as described in section IV.A.4, it has not 

conducted analysis on the use of 

alternative refrigerants in this rule. 

In response to comments regarding 

the FREEZE model’s ability to model the 

harvest cycle, DOE notes that while the 

FREEZE model does not simulate the 

harvest period analytically, the harvest 

energy is an input for the program that 

DOE adjusted consistent with test data. 

In short, the model’s ability to 

accurately calculate the energy use 

associated with harvest is limited only 

by the availability of data showing the 

trends of harvest cycle energy use as 

different design options are considered. 

DOE requested information regarding 

this aspect of ice maker performance, 

received some information through 

comments and information exchange 

with manufacturers, and modified the 

energy use calculations accordingly. 

DOE notes that the harvest cycle 

energy use issue associated with the 

calculation of energy use for batch ice 

makers does not apply to continuous ice 

makers, which do not have a harvest 

cycle. DOE concludes that the inability 

to measure harvest cycle energy use 

cannot be a reason to question the 

energy use calculations made for 

continuous ice makers. DOE notes that 

stakeholders have not identified similar 

aspects of continuous ice maker 

operation that could potentially be cited 

as reasons for inaccuracies in the energy 

use calculations associated with these 

ice makers. 

In response to Ice-O-matic’s comment 

regarding the FREEZE model’s ability to 

model half cube ice machines, DOE 

notes that the FREEZE model is capable 

of modeling such units. However, as 

indicated in section IV.D.1 DOE has 

chosen to base the analysis on full-cube 

ice machines which, as explained in 

section IV.D.1, may have an efficiency 

disadvantage as compared to half- dice 

machines. Hence, focus on full-cube ice 

makers makes the analysis more 

conservative. 

Expected Savings for Specific Design 

Options 

Several commenters questioned the 

energy model’s assumptions regarding 

the relationship between compressor 

EER improvement and ice maker 

efficiency improvement. AHRI stated 

that the assumed relationship should be 

verified with laboratory tests. (AHRI, 

No. 93 at p. 15) 

Manitowoc and Hoshizaki each stated 

that they tested a compressor with 12% 

higher EER compared to baseline and 

that it yielded a 3% efficiency 

improvement. (Manitowoc, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 138– 

142; Hoshizaki, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 152) Ice-O-Matic 

commented that they tested a 

compressor with 10% higher EER and 

that it yielded only a 2% improvement 

in efficiency. Ice-O-Matic noted that this 

is due to the unique circumstances of 

the harvest cycle, which removes a lot 

of the improvements that are typically 

seen with compressor efficiency gains in 

other refrigeration equipment. (Ice-OMatic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

70 at p. 148–149) Follett noted that they 

observed a 9% efficiency gain with a 

compressor that was 5% more efficient 

and an ECM fan in an IMH–A–Large–C 

ice maker. Follett indicated that these 

design options would increase cost $60, 

a cost for which the DOE NOPR analysis 

predicted 20% improvement. (Follet, 

No. 84 at p. 8) 

AHRI stated that the FREEZE energy 

model results during the June 19th 

public meeting did not support the 

findings DOE published in the NOPR 

when swapping an upgraded 

compressor. Rather the model 

simulation predicted that the unit with 

the upgraded compressor would 

produce more ice and consume more 

energy. AHRI stated that they submitted 

actual test data for this unit which 

showed modest efficiency savings for 

upgrading the compressor. AHRI noted 

that this finding is contradictory to the 

significant energy savings DOE claimed 

would be possible in the NOPR. (AHRI, 

No. 128 at p. 6–7) DOE responds that 

accurate modeling with any analysis 

requires careful validation of the input 

data and that no conclusions can be 

drawn regarding the results that 

emerged during the meeting because 

there was no time to ensure consistency 

of the input and to review the output to 

understand whether there was a valid 

reason for any unexpected results. One 

could argue, contrary to the AHRI 

position, that the results showed that 

the FREEZE model predicts higher 

energy use than would actually be 

consumed—DOE realizes that such a 

conclusion would be meaningless. The 

only real conclusion is that the program 

is not easy to operate and requires 

careful review of both input and output 

in order to ensure that results are 

meaningful. 

To address the stakeholder concerns 

that the FREEZE model cannot 

adequately model the effects of 

increased compressor efficiency on 

ACIM energy consumption, DOE 

modified the outputs of the energy 

model based on data received in the 

comments as well as from 

manufacturers under non-disclosure 

agreements. DOE also performed testing 

on several ice-making units and used 

the test data to further inform the 

relationship between increased 

compressor efficiency and ACIM 

efficiency. 

Operating Conditions 

NAFEM, Emerson, Manitowoc, 

Scotsman commented that DOE’s 

engineering analysis is flawed because it 

only examines compressor ratings at 

AHRI conditions, rather than over the 

wide range of operating conditions 

experienced by ACIMs in the field. 

(NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 10, Emerson, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at 

p. 144; Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 144–146; 

Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 2) Emerson noted 

that the AHRI rating point for 

compressors is not typically where an 

ice machine operates which may 

contribute to the issues with DOE’s 

modeling. (Emerson, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 144) Manitowoc 

stated that they typically use a 10–105 

condition for compressors, whereas the 

cost curves used a 15/95 condition,29

which does not match operating 

conditions that occur in ice machines. 

Manitowoc also noted that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4693 

compressor maps cannot model what 

happens during the harvest event or the 

pre-chill time and that the coefficient 

models do not include these operating 

regions. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 144–146) 

Danfloss also stated that compressor 

maps are not useful in developing 

assumptions about ice maker 

compressor performance. (Danfoss, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at 

p. 152–153) 

AHRI noted that DOE did not take 

operation changes into account, such as 

different batch times or energy use, 

when upgrading to a more efficient 

compressor. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 2) 

In response to the comment that 

compressors operate under a wide range 

of conditions in the field, DOE 

requested information that could be 

used to guide the analysis with respect 

in regards to what compressors are not 

suitable for use in ice makers, and/or 

what other guidelines could be used to 

avoid consideration of ice maker 

designs that are not viable in the field. 

DOE did not receive from stakeholders 

specific guidelines that could be used to 

limit the degree to which a design 

option might be applied for a given ice 

maker model in its analysis. In response 

to Emerson’s comment about 

compressor rating conditions not being 

the typical operating conditions during 

ice maker testing, DOE notes that the 

calculation of compressor performance 

during the test was done at more typical 

compressor operating conditions during 

ice maker testing, based on the full set 

of performance data for the 

compressor—not at the compressor 

rating conditions. In response to the 

comment regarding the 15/95 conditions 

associated with the cost curves, the 

performance calculations for the 

compressors had nothing to do with the 

15/95 conditions—the 15/95 conditions 

were simply an intermediate step in 

assigning a representative cost for a 

given compressor. This assignment of 

cost involved converting the rated AHRI 

20/120 capacity for the compressor into 

a 15/95 condition by multiplying the 

capacity by 1.29. DOE then used this 

result as described in Chapter 5 of the 

TSD to determine an initial nominal 

cost using the relationship described in 

the TSD. DOE further increased the cost 

based on feedback obtained about 

compressor costs from manufacturers 

throughout the rulemaking. 

DOE received data showing the trends 

in ice maker energy use reduction with 

improved compressor EER, including 

data received as part of the AHRI NOPR 

comment, as well as additional data 

received by DOE’s contractor under 

non-disclosure agreement. The data 

showed that for batch ice makers, the 

ice maker energy use reduction is a 

fraction of the expected energy use 

reduction when considering just the 

compressor EER improvement. DOE 

applied this reduction in efficiency 

improvement to its NODA and final rule 

analyses. 

Analysis Calibration 

DOE calibrated the engineering 

analysis by comparing the energy use 

predictions associated with given sets of 

design options with energy usage and 

design data collected from existing ice 

maker models. DOE revisited these 

calibrations in the final rule phase. In 

general, DOE’s analysis for a given ice 

maker class is based on an existing ice 

maker model with an efficiency level at 

or near baseline. Hence, the analysis is 

calibrated to this particular ice maker 

model at its efficiency level, which is 

based on either its rating or a 

combination of its rating and the results 

of DOE testing. The analysis considers 

the energy use impact of adding design 

options to improve efficiency. In order 

to represent the baseline, the analysis 

may consider removing a design option 

(or more than one if necessary) to allow 

representation of a design that is at the 

baseline efficiency level. 

DOE also calibrated its analysis using 

units at maximum available efficiency 

levels (or in some cases, efficiency 

levels less than the maximum available), 

specifically equipment without 

proprietary technologies, such as lowthermal-mass or tube-type evaporators 

for batch ice makers. DOE chose design 

options to reach the maximum available 

efficiency levels of existing equipment. 

Importantly design options involving 

electronically commutate motors and 

drain water heat exchangers were 

excluded from calibration, as these were 

not considered to be commonly used in 

current ice makers. In some cases, the 

set of design options chosen to represent 

the maximum efficiency level matched 

the designs of the maximum available 

efficiency level equipment. In other 

cases, the designs did not match exactly, 

and the design of the DOE analysis may 

have had more improvement in one 

component, while the maximum 

available ice maker had more 

improvement in another component. In 

order to ensure that DOE was not 

underestimating the costs associated 

with the overall design improvements, 

DOE estimated the cost differential 

between changing the major 

components of the analyzed max 

efficiency unit to match those of the 

maximum available equipment. Major 

components considered in this estimate 

were the compressor, evaporator, 

condenser, and condenser fan. Table 

IV.25 shows this calibration, listing: The 

maximum efficiency reached by each 

directly analyzed equipment class, 

without considering ECM or drain water 

heat exchanger (DWHX) design options; 

the efficiency of the maximum available 

unit; and the cost difference associated 

with modifying the major components 

of to match those in the maximum 

available. A negative cost differential 

indicates that the DOE analysis 

predicted a higher cost at that efficiency 

level compared with the maximum 

available unit. The computed cost 

differentials are zero or negative in all 

but one case, showing that the DOE 

analysis does not underestimate the cost 

of reaching these higher efficiency 

levels. For the one case in which the 

differential is positive, $4 for the IMH– 

A–Small–B 22-Inch ice maker, the 

maximum available efficiency level is 

5% higher than the level predicted by 

DOE’s energy use analysis for a 

comparable set of design options. The 

calibration is presented in more detail 

in Chapter 5 of the TSD. 

TABLE IV.25—MAXIMUM AVAILABLE CALIBRATION

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

(lb ice/24 

hours) 

DOE Analysis 

maximum 

efficiency level 

(% below 

baseline) 

Maximum 

available 

efficiency level 

(% below 

baseline) 

Cost 

differential 

moving from 

analyzed to 

maximum 

available 

($) 

IMH–W–Small–B .............................................................................................. 300 19.2 19.2 ¥29 

IMH–W–Small–B (22-inch wide) ...................................................................... 300 16.9 16.9 ¥34 

IMH–A–Small–B ............................................................................................... 300 19.3 19.3 ¥27 

IMH–A–Small–B (22-inch wide) ....................................................................... 300 11.6 16.6 +4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4694 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.25—MAXIMUM AVAILABLE CALIBRATION—Continued 

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

(lb ice/24 

hours) 

DOE Analysis 

maximum 

efficiency level 

(% below 

baseline) 

Maximum 

available 

efficiency level 

(% below 

baseline) 

Cost 

differential 

moving from 

analyzed to 

maximum 

available 

($) 

IMH–A–Large–B–Medium ................................................................................ 800 16.1 16.1 ¥74 

IMH–A–Large–B (22-inch wide) ....................................................................... 590 5.5 5.5 ¥13 

IMH–A–Large–B–Large ................................................................................... 1500 6.2 6.0 ¥130 

IMH–W–Med–B ................................................................................................ 850 10.4 14.3 ¥240 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ......................................................................................... 2600 2.5 2.5 0 

RCU–NRC–Large–B–Med ............................................................................... 1500 15.7 15.7 ¥62 

RCU–NRC–Large–B–Large ............................................................................. 2400 14.9 14.9 ¥329 

SCU–A–Small–B .............................................................................................. 110 26.6 24.9 ¥61 

SCU–A–Large–B ............................................................................................. 200 23.5 26.4 ¥28 

SCU–W–Large–B ............................................................................................ 300 27.6 27.6 0 

IMH–A–Small–C .............................................................................................. 310 19.8 28.0 ¥30 

IMH–A–Large–C .............................................................................................. 820 17.0 35.7 ¥11 

SCU–A–Small–C ............................................................................................. 220 21.8 30.1 ¥62 

RCU–NRC–Small–C ........................................................................................ 610 17.9 18.4 ¥40 

c. Revision of NOPR and NODA 

Engineering Analysis 

DOE developed the final engineering 

analysis by updating the NOPR and 

NODA analyses. This included making 

adjustments to the manufacturing cost 

model as described in section IV.D.4.a. 

It also included adjustments to energy 

modeling as described in section IV.D.4. 

DOE made several changes to the 

engineering analysis throughout the 

course of this rulemaking. Specifically, 

in response to the concerns raised by 

stakeholders, DOE adjusted its analysis 

to rely more on test data based on input 

received in manufacturers’ public and 

confidential comments than on 

theoretically analysis. These changes 

included: 

• Based on new data, DOE made 

changes to the energy use reductions 

associated with individual design 

options; 

• Based on new cost data, DOE made 

changes to the costs associated with 

individual design options. Design 

options were changed as a result of new 

data obtained through non-disclosure 

agreements with DOE’s engineering 

contractor and comments made during 

the NOPR comment period developing 

an approach based on test data to 

determine the condensing temperature 

reductions associated with use of larger 

water-cooled condensers; 

• Based on comments made during 

the NOPR period, DOE added additional 

cost-efficiency curves for 22-inch width 

units in the IMH–A–Small–B, IMH–A– 

Large–B, and IMH–W–Small–B 

equipment classes, and an additional 

cost-efficiency curve for the RCU– 

Small–C equipment class. 

DOE calibrated the results of its 

calculations with maximum available 

ice makers that are available in the 

market and which do not incorporate 

proprietary technologies. This 

calibration at the maximum available 

levels shows that the costs DOE 

assigned to the maximum available level 

is generally higher than suggested by the 

compared maximum available 

equipment. 

DOE believes that these changes help 

ensure that analysis accurately reflect 

technology behavior in the market. 

Further details on the analyses are 

available in chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD. 

E. Markups Analysis 

DOE applies multipliers called 

‘‘markups’’ to the manufacturer selling 

price (MSP) to calculate the customer 

purchase price of the analyzed 

equipment. These markups are in 

addition to the manufacturer markup 

(discussed in section IV.J.2.b) and are 

intended to reflect the cost and profit 

margins associated with the distribution 

and sales of the equipment between the 

manufacturer and customer. DOE 

identified three major distribution 

channels for automatic commercial ice 

makers, and markup values were 

calculated for each distribution channel 

based on industry financial data. Table 

IV.26 shows the three distribution 

channels and the percentage of the 

shipments each is assumed to reflect. 

The overall markup values were then 

calculated by weighted-averaging the 

individual markups with market share 

values of the distribution channels. See 

chapter 6 of the TSD for more details on 

DOE’s methodology for markups 

analysis. 

TABLE IV.26—DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKET SHARES

National account channel: 

Manufacturer direct to customer (1-party) 

Wholesaler channel: 

Manufacturer to distributor 

to customer (2-party) 

Contractor channel: 

Contractor purchase from 

distributor for installation 

(3-party) 

0% 38% 62% 

In general, DOE has found that 

markup values vary over a wide range 

based on general economic outlook, 

manufacturer brand value, inventory 

levels, manufacturer rebates to 

distributors based on sales volume, 

newer versions of the same equipment 

model introduced into the market by the 

manufacturers, and availability of 

cheaper or more technologically 

advanced alternatives. Based on market 

data, DOE divided distributor costs into 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4695 

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

labor expenses; (3) occupancy expenses; 

(4) other operating expenses (such as 

depreciation, advertising, and 

insurance); and (5) profit. DOE assumed 

that, for higher efficiency equipment 

only, the ‘‘other operating costs’’ and 

‘‘profit’’ scale with MSP, while the 

remaining costs stay constant 

irrespective of equipment efficiency 

level. Thus, DOE applied a baseline 

markup through which all estimated 

distribution costs are collected as part of 

the total baseline equipment cost, and 

the baseline markups were applied as 

multipliers only to the baseline MSP. 

Incremental markups were applied as 

multipliers only to the MSP increments 

(of higher efficiency equipment 

compared to baseline) and not to the 

entire MSP. Taken together the two 

markups are consistent with economic 

behavior in a competitive market—the 

participants are only able to recover 

costs and a reasonable profit level. 

DOE received a number of comments 

regarding markups after the publication 

of the NOPR. 

In written comments, Manitowoc, 

Hoshizaki, NAFEM, Follett and AHRI 

commented that baseline and 

incremental markups should be equal, 

set at the level of the baseline markups. 

(Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 2; Hoshizaki, 

No. 86 at p. 3; NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 5; 

Follett, No. 84 at p. 6; and AHRI, No. 93 

at p. 6–7) 

Some stakeholders at the NOPR 

public meeting commented that DOE 

should not use incremental markups for 

incremental equipment costs arising 

from the imposition of new standards 

and that DOE should instead use one set 

of markups, that corresponds to the 

baseline markups. Danfoss commented 

that wholesalers did not ask which part 

of prices were baseline and which were 

incremental. (Danfoss, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 197–198) 

Manitowoc stated that if they change list 

prices, their channel partners simply 

add a markup, and Manitowoc was not 

sure they would adopt another approach 

because a regulatory change drove up 

costs. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 192–193) 

Danfoss suggested DOE go back and 

review the results of earlier rulemakings 

and identify how markups worked in 

those equipment markets. Doing so 

could add some credibility to the DOE 

markups methodology, maybe not in 

time for the ACIM rulemaking but in 

time for later rulemakings. (Danfoss, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

195) AHRI agreed that DOE should go 

back and try to verify the numbers at 

some point, maybe not for this 

rulemaking but for the next one. (AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

199–200) NAFEM and Manitowoc also 

suggested validation studies. (NAFEM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

198; Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 190) 

ASAP stated that DOE implemented 

markups where every dollar spent got 

the same markup in rulemakings before 

the year 2000. ASAP argued that the real 

world does not work that way because 

businesses cover fixed costs in a certain 

fashion, and variable costs in a certain 

fashion. ASAP has done some work 

examining the question of how good 

DOE’s methods are at predicting prices. 

ASAP found that DOE’s predicted prices 

tend to be higher than they should be, 

based on retrospective analysis. ASAP 

welcomes more retrospective analysis 

but notes that such analysis won’t help 

this docket. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 195–197) 

Scotsman provided suggestions for 

price estimation services, and 

commented that the cumulative impact 

on the supply chain of training, store 

design modifications, maintenance, 

costs associated with passing along 

manufacturer adjusted pricing, and 

retrofit of existing locations would add 

significantly to the costs of the 

standards. (Scotsman, No. 95 at page 5) 

DOE acknowledges that a detailed 

review of results following compliance 

with prior rulemakings could provide 

information on wholesaler and 

contractor pricing practices, and agrees 

that such results would not be timely for 

this rulemaking. In the absence of such 

information, DOE has concluded that its 

approach, which is consistent with 

expected business behavior in 

competitive markets, is reasonable to 

apply. If the cost of goods sold increases 

due to efficiency standards, DOE 

continues to assume that markups 

would decline slightly, leaving profit 

unchanged, and, thus, it uses lower 

markups on the incremental costs of 

higher-efficiency products. This 

approach is consistent with behavior in 

competitive markets wherein market 

participants are expected to be able to 

recover costs and reasonable levels of 

profit. If the markup remains constant 

while the cost of goods sold increases, 

as Manitowoc, Hoshizaki, NAFEM, 

Follett, and AHRI suggest, the 

wholesalers’ profits would also increase. 

While this might happen in the short 

run, DOE believes that the wholesale 

market is sufficiently competitive that 

there would be pressure on margins. 

DOE recognizes that attempting to 

capture the market response to changing 

cost conditions is difficult. However, 

DOE’s approach is consistent with the 

mainstream understanding of firm 

behavior in a competitive market. 

With respect to Manitowoc and 

Danfoss comments related to differential 

pricing based on efficiency 

improvements, DOE’s approach for 

wholesaler markups does not imply that 

wholesalers differentiate markups based 

on the technologies inherently present 

in the equipment. Rather, it assumes 

that the average markup declines as the 

wholesalers’ cost of goods sold increases 

due to the higher cost of more-efficient 

equipment for the reasons explained in 

the previous paragraph. 

With respect to Scotsman’s 

comments, DOE reviewed the suggested 

price quote services and, while 

appreciative of the information, found 

them to not provide the type of 

information needed for estimating 

markups on a national or state average 

basis. As for the costs mentioned, DOE 

believes costs such as passing along the 

manufacturer pricing and personnel 

training are already embodied in 

markups as such costs would be 

included in the data used to estimate 

markups and no evidence has been 

entered into the record to demonstrate 

that the costs caused by the proposed 

standards would be extraordinary. Other 

costs such as building renovation and 

retrofit costs were included in 

installation costs, as appropriate. 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

DOE estimated energy usage for use in 

the LCC and NIA models based on the 

kWh/100 lb ice and gal/100 lb ice values 

developed in the engineering analysis in 

combination with other assumptions. 

For the NOPR, DOE assumed that ice 

makers on average are used to produce 

one-half of the ice the machines could 

produce (i.e., a 50 percent capacity 

factor). DOE also assumed that when not 

making ice, on average ice makers 

would draw 5 watts of power. DOE 

modeled condenser water usage as 

‘‘open-loop’’ installations, or 

installations where water is used in the 

condenser one time (single pass) and 

released into the wastewater system. 

Hoshizaki asked about the basis for 

the 50 percent usage factor. (Hoshizaki, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

204) NEEA referred to the usage factor 

as a best estimate, and noted that the 50 

percent factor had not been improved 

upon in response to earlier rulemaking 

stages. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 204–205) 

With its written comments, AHRI 

supplied monitored results collected by 

two manufacturers and recommended 

that DOE revise the utilization factor to 

38%, based on the average of the data 

collected from stores, cafeterias, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4696 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

30 Karas, A. and D. Fisher. A Field Study to 

Characterize Water and Energy Use of Commercial 

Ice-Cube Machines and Quantify Saving Potential. 

December 2007. Fisher-Nickel, Inc. San Ramon, CA. 

31Water costs are the total of water and 

wastewater costs. Wastewater utilities tend to not 

meter customer wastewater flows, and base billings 

on water commodity billings. For this reason, water 

usage is used as the basis for both water and 

wastewater costs, and the two are aggregated in the 

LCC and PBP analysis. 

32Monte Carlo simulation is, generally, a 

computerized mathematical technique that allows 

for computation of the outputs from a mathematical 

model based on multiple simulations using 

different input values. The input values are varied 

based on the uncertainties inherent to those inputs. 

The combination of the input values of different 

inputs is carried out in a random fashion to 

simulate the different probable input combinations. 

The outputs of the Monte Carlo simulations reflect 

the various probable outputs that are possible due 

to the uncertainties in the inputs. 

restaurants in a variety of states. (AHRI, 

No. 93 at p. 2–3) Follett commented that 

its data shows that ice makers run an 

average of 38% of the time and that DOE 

should modify its analysis accordingly. 

(Follett, No. 84 at p. 3) Manitowoc 

commented that a more accurate average 

duty cycle for ACIMs is 40% based on 

data it had collected. (Manitowoc, No. 

92 at p. 3) 

NEEA recommended that DOE adjust 

the energy use on a weighted sales 

average to reflect a higher duty cycle for 

ice makers that are replacements as 

compared to new units, where ice 

demand may not be accurately known. 

(NEEA, No. 91 at p. 2) 

Based on the monitored results 

submitted by AHRI and similar 

monitored results found in a report 

posted online,30 DOE utilized a 42 

percent capacity factor to estimate 

energy usage for the LCC and NIA 

models. With respect to NEEA’s 

comment, given that DOE has no 

information on new versus replacement 

units and that the sample of monitored 

results does not include all relevant 

business types, DOE used the factor 

based on monitored results for new and 

replacement shipments for all business 

types. 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

In response to the requirements of 

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

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

PBP analysis to evaluate the economic 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on individual 

commercial customers—that is, buyers 

of the equipment. This section describes 

the analyses and the spreadsheet model 

DOE used. TSD chapter 8 details the 

model and all the inputs to the LCC and 

PBP analyses. 

LCC is defined as the total customer 

cost over the lifetime of the equipment, 

and consists of installed cost (purchase 

and installation costs) and operating 

costs (maintenance, repair, water,31 and 

energy costs). DOE discounts future 

operating costs to the time of purchase 

and sums them over the expected 

lifetime of the unit of equipment. PBP 

is defined as the estimated amount of 

time it takes customers to recover the 

higher installed costs of more-efficient 

equipment through savings in operating 

costs. DOE calculates the PBP by 

dividing the increase in installed costs 

by the savings in annual operating costs. 

DOE measures the changes in LCC and 

in PBP associated with a given energy 

and water use standard level relative to 

a base-case forecast of equipment energy 

and water use (or the ‘‘baseline energy 

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

reflects the market in the absence of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. 

The installed cost of equipment to a 

customer is the sum of the equipment 

purchase price and installation costs. 

The purchase price includes MPC, to 

which a manufacturer markup (which is 

assumed to include at least a first level 

of outbound freight cost) is applied to 

obtain the MSP. This value is calculated 

as part of the engineering analysis 

(chapter 5 of the TSD). DOE then 

applies additional markups to the 

equipment to account for the costs 

associated with the distribution 

channels for the particular type of 

equipment (chapter 6 of the TSD). 

Installation costs are varied by state 

depending on the prevailing labor rates. 

Operating costs for automatic 

commercial ice makers are the sum of 

maintenance costs, repair costs, water, 

and energy costs. These costs are 

incurred over the life of the equipment 

and therefore are discounted to the base 

year (2018, which is the proposed 

effective date of the amended standards 

that will be established as part of this 

rulemaking). The sum of the installed 

cost and the operating cost, discounted 

to reflect the present value, is termed 

the life-cycle cost or LCC. 

Generally, customers incur higher 

installed costs when they purchase 

higher-efficiency equipment, and these 

cost increments will be partially or 

wholly offset by savings in the operating 

costs over the lifetime of the equipment. 

Usually, the savings in operating costs 

are due to savings in energy costs 

because higher-efficiency equipment 

uses less energy over the lifetime of the 

equipment. Often, the LCC of higherefficiency equipment is lower compared 

to lower-efficiency equipment. 

The PBP of higher-efficiency 

equipment is obtained by dividing the 

increase in the installed cost by the 

decrease in annual operating cost. For 

this calculation, DOE uses the first-year 

operating cost decreases as the estimate 

of the decrease in operating cost, noting 

that some of the repair and maintenance 

costs used in the analysis are 

annualized estimates of costs. DOE 

calculates a PBP for each efficiency 

level of each equipment class. In 

addition to the energy costs (calculated 

using the electricity price forecast for 

the first year), the first-year operating 

costs also include annualized 

maintenance and repair costs. 

Apart from MSP, installation costs, 

and maintenance and repair costs, other 

important inputs for the LCC analysis 

are markups and sales tax, equipment 

energy consumption, electricity prices 

and future price trends, expected 

equipment lifetime, and discount rates. 

As part of the engineering analysis, 

design option levels were ordered based 

on increasing efficiency (decreased 

energy and water consumption) and 

increasing MSP values. DOE developed 

two to seven energy use levels for each 

equipment class, henceforth referred to 

as ‘‘efficiency levels,’’ through the 

analysis of engineering design options. 

For all equipment classes, efficiency 

levels were set at specific intervals— 

e.g., 10 percent improvement over base 

energy usage, 15 percent improvement, 

20 percent improvement. The max-tech 

efficiency level is the only exception. At 

the max-tech level, the efficiency 

improvement matched the specific 

levels identified in the engineering 

analysis. 

The base efficiency level (level 1) in 

each equipment class is the least 

efficient and the least expensive 

equipment in that class. The higher 

efficiency levels (level 2 and higher) 

exhibit progressive increases in 

efficiency and cost with the highest 

efficiency level corresponding to the 

max-tech level. LCC savings and PBP 

are calculated for each selected 

efficiency level of each equipment class. 

Many inputs for the LCC analysis are 

estimated from the best available data in 

the market, and in some cases the inputs 

are generally accepted values within the 

industry. In general, each input value 

has a range of values associated with it. 

While single representative values for 

each input may yield an output that is 

the most probable value for that output, 

such an analysis does not give the 

general range of values that can be 

attributed to a particular output value. 

Therefore, DOE carried out the LCC 

analysis in the form of Monte Carlo 

simulations 32 in which certain inputs 

were expressed as a range of values and 

probability distributions that account 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4697 

33A Weibull survival function is a continuous 

probability distribution function that is commonly 

used to approximate the distribution of equipment 

lifetimes. 

for the ranges of values that may be 

typically associated with the respective 

input values. The results or outputs of 

the LCC analysis are presented in the 

form of mean LCC savings, percentages 

of customers experiencing net savings, 

net cost and no impact in LCC, and 

median PBP. For each equipment class, 

10,000 Monte Carlo simulations were 

carried out. The simulations were 

conducted using Microsoft Excel and 

Crystal Ball, a commercially available 

Excel add-in used to carry out Monte 

Carlo simulations. 

LCC savings and PBP are calculated 

by comparing the installed costs and 

LCC values of standards-case scenarios 

against those of base-case scenarios. The 

base-case scenario is the scenario in 

which equipment is assumed to be 

purchased by customers in the absence 

of the proposed energy conservation 

standards. Standards-case scenarios are 

scenarios in which equipment is 

assumed to be purchased by customers 

after the amended energy conservation 

standards, determined as part of the 

current rulemaking, go into effect. The 

number of standards-case scenarios for 

an equipment class is equal to one less 

than the total number of efficiency 

levels in that equipment class because 

each efficiency level above efficiency 

level 1 represents a potential amended 

standard. Usually, the equipment 

available in the market will have a 

distribution of efficiencies. Therefore, 

for both base-case and standards-case 

scenarios, in the LCC analysis, DOE 

assumed a distribution of efficiencies in 

the market, and the distribution was 

assumed to be spread across all 

efficiency levels in the LCC analysis (see 

TSD chapter 10). 

Recognizing that different types of 

businesses and industries that use 

automatic commercial ice makers face 

different energy prices and apply 

different discount rates to purchase 

decisions, DOE analyzed variability and 

uncertainty in the LCC and PBP results 

by performing the LCC and PBP 

calculations for seven types of 

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

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

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

types of businesses face different energy 

prices and also exhibit differing 

discount rates that they apply to 

purchase decisions. 

Expected equipment lifetime is 

another input for which it is 

inappropriate to use a single value for 

each equipment class. Therefore, DOE 

assumed a distribution of equipment 

lifetimes that are defined by Weibull 

survival functions.33

Equipment lifetime is a key input for 

the LCC and PBP analysis. For 

automatic commercial ice maker 

equipment, there is a general consensus 

among industry stakeholders that the 

typical equipment lifetime is 

approximately 7 to 10 years with an 

average of 8.5 years. There was no data 

or comment to suggest that lifetimes are 

unique to each equipment class. 

Therefore, DOE assumed a distribution 

of equipment lifetimes that is defined by 

Weibull survival functions, with an 

average value of 8.5 years. 

Using monitored data on the 

percentage of potential ice-making 

capacity that is actually used in real 

world installations (referred herein as 

utilization factor, but also referred to as 

duty cycle), the electricity and water 

usage of ice makers were also varied in 

the LCC analysis. 

Another factor influencing the LCC 

analysis is the physical location in 

which the automatic commercial ice 

maker is installed. Location is captured 

by using state-level inputs, including 

installation costs, water and energy 

prices, and sales tax (plus the associated 

distribution chain markups). At the 

national level, the spreadsheets 

explicitly modeled variability in the 

model inputs for water price, electricity 

price, and markups using probability 

distributions based on the relative 

populations in all states. 

Detailed descriptions of the 

methodology used for the LCC analysis, 

along with a discussion of inputs and 

results, are presented in chapter 8 and 

appendices 8A and 8B of the TSD. 

1. Equipment Cost 

To calculate customer equipment 

costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs 

developed in the engineering analysis 

by the distribution channel markups, 

described in section IV.E. DOE applied 

baseline markups to baseline MSPs and 

incremental markups to the MSP 

increments associated with higher 

efficiency levels. 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE developed 

a projection of price trends for 

automatic commercial ice maker 

equipment, indicating that based on 

historical price trends the MSP would 

be projected to decline by 0.4 percent 

from the 2012 estimation of MSP values 

through the 2018 assumed start date of 

new or amended standards. The NOPR 

analysis also indicated an 

approximately 1.7 percent decline from 

the MSP values estimated in 2012 to the 

end of the 30-year NIA analysis period 

used in the NOPR. 

AHRI questioned where the price 

trend data came from and asked how 

confident DOE was of the numbers. 

(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

70 at p. 216) In written comments, AHRI 

expressed concern with the experiential 

learning analysis and use of a producer 

price index and urged DOE to assume 

the MSP remain constant. (AHRI, No. 93 

at p. 16–17) 

PG&E and SDG&E expressed their 

support of DOE’s use of experiential 

price learning in life-cycle cost analysis. 

(PG&E and SDG&E, No. 89 at p. 4) 

DOE acknowledges the PG&E and 

SDG&G comment. In response to the 

AHRI comments that the data do not 

support the price trends, DOE agrees 

that it would be better to have data very 

specific to automatic commercial ice 

maker price trends. However, such is 

not available. The PPI used in the 

analysis of price trends embodies the 

price trends of automatic commercial 

ice makers as well as related 

technologies, including those used as 

inputs to the manufacturing process. 

DOE would also note that a sensitivity 

analysis was performed with price 

trends held constant, and doing such 

would not have impacted the selection 

of efficiency levels for TSLs. (See 

appendix 10B of the final rule TSD.) 

Because DOE believes there is evidence 

that price learning exists, DOE 

continued to use price learning for the 

final rule. 

As is customary between phases of a 

rulemaking, DOE re-examined the data 

available and updated the price trend 

analysis. DOE continued to use a subset 

of the air-conditioning, refrigeration, 

and forced air heating equipment 

Producer Price Index (PPI) that includes 

only commercial refrigeration and 

related equipment, and excludes 

unrelated equipment. Using this PPI for 

the automatic commercial ice maker 

price trends analysis yields a price 

decline of roughly 2.4 percent over the 

period of 2013 (the year for which MSP 

was estimated) through 2047. For the 

LCC model, between 2013 and 2018, the 

price decline is 0.5 percent. 

2. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 

Costs 

a. Installation Costs 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

equipment. Most automatic commercial 

ice makers are installed in fairly 

standard configurations. For the NOPR, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4698 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE assumed that the installation costs 

vary from one equipment class to 

another, but not by efficiency level 

within an equipment class. For the 

NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that 

the engineering design options did not 

impact the installation cost within an 

equipment class. DOE therefore 

assumed that the installation cost for 

automatic commercial ice makers did 

not vary among efficiency levels within 

an equipment class. Costs that do not 

vary with efficiency levels do not 

impact the LCC, PBP, or NIA results. 

During the public meeting 

manufacturers commented that not all 

customers can accommodate increased 

unit sizes, and that DOE must consider 

additional costs incurred from 

modifying facilities to accommodate ice 

makers with potential changes 

including plumbing and/or electrical 

work, relocating existing equipment, 

and/or building renovations. (Scotsman, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

126–127; Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 133 and p. 209; 

Ice-O-Matic, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 208 and p. 210) 

In written comments, AHRI stated it 

was incorrect to assume installation cost 

would not increase with the efficiency 

improvement. (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 4) 

AHRI and Follett stated that larger ice 

makers will require installation space 

modification and would result in higher 

installation costs. (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 7– 

8; Follett, No. 84 at p. 6) Hoshizaki 

stated that the current installation cost 

range considerations may be correct for 

ice makers without size increases but 

agreed with AHRI and Follett that the 

installation cost would increase if the 

cabinet size went up, and that drain 

water heat exchangers would further 

increase installation costs. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 86 at p. 3–4) Manitowoc provided 

written comments, adding that remote 

condenser and remote condenser with 

compressor units that have larger 

condenser coils will require larger roof 

curbs or stronger mounting, depending 

on whether footprint or height is 

affected. (Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 3) 

Scotsman stated in response to the 

NOPR and to the NODA that customers 

with space constraints could incur costs 

including but not limited to building 

renovation, water and wastewater 

service relocation, and electric service 

and countertop renovations. (Scotsman, 

No. 85 at p. 5b–6b; No. 125 at p. 2) 

Scotsman also stated that any efficiency 

improvement greater than 5 percent 

would cause cabinet size increases. 

(Scotsman, No. 125 at p. 2) Policy 

Analyst stated that DOE should assess 

whether commercial ice maker 

installation costs are affected by its 

proposed standards. (Policy Analyst, 

No. 75, p. 10) 

Joint Commenters commented that 

DOE appropriately considered design 

options that increased package sizes, 

noting the options consumers have for 

purchases and noting the opportunity 

consumers might have to select smaller 

units given the low utilization factors 

used in the analysis. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 87, p. 3) NEEA similarly stated that 

DOE appropriately considered all the 

factors related to chassis size increase 

(NEEA, No. 91, pp. 1–2) PG&E and 

SDG&E, and CA IOU noted that it is 

unclear that insufficient space exists to 

increase chassis sizes in all situations. 

(PG&E and SDG&E, No. 89, p. 3, and CA 

IOU, No. 129, p. 4) 

As suggested by Policy Analyst and 

manufacturers, DOE investigated further 

the question of installation costs varying 

by efficiency levels. In particular, DOE 

investigated the issue around increased 

cabinet sizes for ice makers and 

modified the installation cost 

calculation methodology to reflect 

increased installation costs for 

equipment classes that are size 

constrained. In response to stakeholder 

comments and data supplied by 

stakeholders, DOE revised the analysis 

for three equipment classes with 

significant shipment volumes of 22- 

inch-wide units and where height 

increases in the cabinets were 

considered in DOE’s engineering 

analysis. In the engineering analysis for 

the final rule, DOE examined design 

options and efficiency level 

improvements for 22-inch units for 

three equipment classes under a 

scenario where no increase in 

equipment size was considered, 

resulting in two separate cost-efficiency 

curves (space constrained and nonspace constrained) for each of these 

three classes (IMH–A–Small–B, IMH– 

A–Large–B, and IMH–W–Small–B). 

Each of these equipment classes is 

designed for mounting on bins, ice 

dispensers, or fountain dispensers, and 

in the case of dispensers, generally the 

combination is mounted on a counter or 

table. For the LCC/PBP analysis and the 

NIA, DOE integrated the two curves for 

these equipment classes. To do so, at the 

efficiency level where the 22-inch 

engineering cost curves end, DOE 

researched the additional installation 

costs customers would incur in order to 

raise ceilings or move walls to make it 

possible for the customers to install the 

larger, non-22-inch units. As PG&E, 

SDG&E and CA IOU stated, not all 

installations lack sufficient space to 

accommodate increased chassis sizes. 

Based on the research performed for the 

final rule, DOE identified percentages of 

customers of the non-space constrained 

equipment who also face size 

constraints, and estimated additional 

installation costs imposed by the need 

to raise ceilings or address other height 

constraints to facilitate cabinet size 

increases. Chapter 8 of the final rule 

TSD describes the process for including 

building renovation costs in the ACIM 

installation costs, and the inputs used in 

the analysis. 

In response to Hoshizaki and 

Manitowoc comments, DOE researched 

DWHX installation costs, and the cost to 

install larger remote condensers. In both 

cases, DOE identified incremental 

installation costs for these design 

options and added such to the 

installation costs at the efficiency levels 

that include these options. 

In response to Scotsman and Ice-OMatic comments that the design options 

might cause customers to need to 

increase the size of electrical or water 

services, the specific technologies 

underlying the design options studied 

by DOE would not require increased 

electrical or water services. In 

performing the engineering analyses, 

DOE analyzed design options for each 

equipment class at the same voltage 

levels as existing typical units. As such, 

there is no reason to believe that 

meeting the energy conservation 

standard for any specific equipment 

class would require an increased 

electrical service. Similarly, there is 

reason to believe meeting the energy 

conservation standard would require 

greater water service, because no design 

options were analyzed which would 

increase water usage. Water or 

wastewater services relocations or 

countertop renovations would be 

required if customers move ice makers, 

but DOE’s belief is that moving ice 

makers would not be a requirement 

imposed by the small cabinet size 

increases envisioned in this rulemaking. 

Additional information regarding the 

estimation of installation costs is 

presented in TSD chapter 8. 

b. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

The repair cost is the average annual 

cost to the customer for replacing or 

repairing components in the automatic 

commercial ice maker that have failed. 

For the NOPR, DOE approximated 

repair costs based on an assessment of 

the components likely to fail within the 

lifetime of an automatic commercial ice 

maker in combination with the 

estimated cost of these components 

developed in the engineering analysis. 

Under this methodology, repair and 

replacement costs are based on the 

original equipment costs, so the more 

expensive the components are, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4699 

34U.S. Energy Information Administration. Sales 

and revenue data by state, monthly back to 1990 

(Form EIA–826). (Last accessed May 19, 2014). 

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

35The spreadsheet tool that DOE used to conduct 

the LCC and PBP analyses allows users to select 

price forecasts from either AEO’s High Economic 

Growth or Low Economic Growth Cases. Users can 

thereby estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP 

results to different energy price forecasts. 

36American Water Works Association. 2008 

Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 2009. Denver, 

CO. Report No. 54004. 

37American Water Works Association. 2010 

Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 2011. Denver, 

CO. Report No. 54006. 

38American Water Works Association. 2012 

Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 2013. Denver, 

CO. Report No. 54008. 

39The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines CPI as 

a measure of the average change over time in the 

prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket 

of consumer goods and services. For more 

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

greater the expected repair or 

replacement cost. For design options 

modeled in the engineering analysis, 

DOE estimated repair costs, and if they 

were different than the baseline cost, the 

repair costs were either increased or 

decreased accordingly. 

Maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the proper operation of the 

equipment. The maintenance cost does 

not include the costs associated with the 

replacement or repair of components 

that have failed, which are included as 

repair costs. In the NOPR analyses, DOE 

estimated material and labor costs for 

preventative maintenance based on RS 

Means cost estimation data and on 

telephone conservations with 

contractors. DOE assumed maintenance 

cost would remain constant for all 

efficiency levels within an equipment 

class. 

AHRI commented that it is incorrect 

to assume that changes in maintenance 

and repair will be negligible for more 

efficient equipment, and that DOE 

should contact parts distributors to find 

the price difference between permanent 

split-capacitor (PSC) and ECM motors 

and between 2-stage and 1-stage 

compressors. AHRI noted that dealers 

usually double their costs when 

invoicing equipment owners. (AHRI, 

No. 93 at p. 4) Similarly, Scotsman 

commented that the supply-chain cost 

impact of the standards would be nearly 

equal in percentage to the manufactured 

product cost increase. (Scotsman, No. 85 

at p. 5b) 

Scotsman commented that the 

expedited product development 

timeline would affect manufacturers by 

impeding the traditional product 

development process, resulting in a 

higher product failure rate, additional 

training burden, and increased repair 

costs and that this cost should be 

included in the analysis (Scotsman, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

212, p. 218, p. 219–220). 

In the final rule analysis released for 

the NODA, DOE added a ‘‘repair labor 

cost’’ to the original repair cost, 

reflective of the cost of replacing 

individual components. DOE’s research 

did not identify studies or data 

indicating that the failure rates, and in 

turn maintenance and repair costs, of 

energy-efficient equipment is 

significantly higher than traditional 

equipment. In response to AHRI’s 

comments about contacting distributors 

about motors and compressors, DOE did 

collect labor information directly from 

service companies upon which to base 

the estimated labor hours. In response to 

AHRI’s note about the doubling of costs, 

the total repair chain markup 

underlying DOE’s estimated repair costs 

is 250 percent of direct equipment costs. 

In response to AHRI’s comment about 

compressors, DOE did not include 2- 

stage compressors in the engineering 

analysis, and so the comment does not 

apply. 

In response to the Scotsman comment 

about warranty costs, DOE has no 

information indicating whether or how 

much failure rates will change as a 

result of standards implementation. To 

the extent that training and warranty 

costs are born by manufacturers and 

identified in the data collection efforts, 

such costs are included in the 

manufacturer impact analysis. 

3. Annual Energy and Water 

Consumption 

Chapter 7 of the final rule TSD details 

DOE’s analysis of annual energy and 

water usage at various efficiency levels 

of automatic commercial ice makers. 

Annual energy and water consumption 

inputs by automatic commercial ice 

maker equipment class are based on the 

engineering analysis estimates of 

kilowatt-hours of electricity per 100 lb 

ice and gallons of water per 100 lb ice, 

translated to annual kilowatt-hours and 

gallons in the energy and water use 

analysis (chapter 7 of the final rule 

TSD). The development of energy and 

water usage inputs is discussed in 

section IV.F along with public input and 

DOE’s response to the public input. 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE calculated average commercial 

electricity prices using the EIA Form 

EIA–826 data obtained online from the 

‘‘Database: Sales (consumption), 

revenue, prices & customers’’ Web 

page.34 The EIA data are the average 

commercial sector retail prices 

calculated as total revenues from 

commercial sales divided by total 

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

received no recommendations or 

suggestions regarding this set of 

assumptions at the April 2014 NOPR 

public meeting or in written comments. 

5. Energy Price Projections 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years for the NOPR and for the final 

rule, DOE multiplied the average statelevel energy prices described in the 

previous paragraph by the forecast of 

annual average commercial energy price 

indices developed in the Reference Case 

from AEO2014.35 AEO2014 forecasted 

prices through 2040. To estimate the 

price trends after 2040, DOE assumed 

the same average annual rate of change 

in prices as exhibited by the forecast 

over the 2031 to 2040 period. DOE 

received no recommendations or 

suggestions regarding this set of 

assumptions at the April 2014 public 

meeting or in written comments. 

6. Water Prices 

To estimate water prices in future 

years for the NOPR, DOE used price 

data from the 2008,36 2010,37 and 2012 

American Water Works Association 

(AWWA) Water and Wastewater 

Surveys.38 The AWWA 2012 survey was 

the primary data set. No data exists to 

disaggregate water prices for individual 

business types, so DOE varied prices by 

state only and not by business type 

within a state. For each state, DOE 

combined all individual utility 

observations within the state to develop 

one value for each state for water and 

wastewater service. Since water and 

wastewater billings are frequently tied 

to the same metered commodity values, 

DOE combined the prices for water and 

wastewater into one total dollars per 

1,000 gallons figure. DOE used the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for 

water-related consumption (1973– 

2012) 39 in developing a real growth rate 

for water and wastewater price 

forecasts. 

In written comments, the Alliance 

stated that DOE looked only at energy 

savings for air-cooled and water-cooled 

ACIM equipment, and that DOE should 

include water and wastewater cost in 

the LCC analysis. The Alliance notes 

that when such costs are included, aircooled equipment is more cost-effective 

than water-cooled equipment. (Alliance, 

No. 73 at p. 3) The Alliance further 

recommended that DOE should reflect 

the rising costs water and wastewater 

cost in its life cycle analysis. (Alliance, 

No. 73 at p. 3) The Alliance also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4700 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

40 Damodaran financial data is available at http:// 

pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/ (Last accessed 

June 6, 2014). 

41Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, State and 

Local Bonds—Bond Buyer Go 20-Bond Municipal 

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

1974–2011 data were available at http://research.

stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MSLB20/downloaddata

?cid=32995. 

42Rates for 2012 and 2013 calculated from 

monthly data. Data source: U.S. Federal Reserve 

(Last accessed July 10, 2014.) Available at http://

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

43Rate calculated with 1974–2013 data. Data 

source: U.S. Federal Reserve (Last accessed July 10, 

2014.) Available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/

releases/h15/data.htm. 

44Small Business Administration data on loans 

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

Corporate Rates. (Last accessed on June 10, 2013.) 

Available at http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7540/ 

6282. 

commented that DOE did not take into 

account the embedded energy needed to 

pump, tread and distribute water and to 

collect and treat wastewater, noting that 

the end user does not pay this cost and 

that it is paid by the water and 

wastewater user. (Alliance, No. 73 at p. 

3, 18–19) 

DOE includes water and wastewater 

cost in the LCC analysis and notes that 

real electric prices (2013$) escalate at 

roughly 0.4 percent between 2013 and 

2047, while real water and wastewater 

prices escalate at roughly 2.0 percent 

over the same time period. DOE 

disagrees with the Alliance’s comment 

that the end user of ice does not pay for 

the cost of energy embedded in the 

water used to make ice. This statement 

implies that the hotels, restaurants and 

other entities that use automatic 

commercial ice makers and pay the 

water and wastewater bills charge prices 

that do not fully recover all of their 

costs of doing business. DOE would 

agree that the end user of ice does not 

perceive the cost of the ice or any of the 

factors of production that went into the 

provision of the ice or the beverage 

served with the ice. However, DOE 

included water and wastewater costs in 

the LCC analyses, thereby capturing the 

cost of embedded energy in the analysis. 

In response to the Alliance’s 

comparison of equipment types, DOE’s 

final rule and final rule TSD present 

LCC results for all equipment classes. 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

preamble, DOE’s rulemaking authority 

required DOE to promulgate standards 

that do not eliminate features or reduce 

customer utility. Because the existing 

standards established by Congress made 

water-cooled equipment separate 

equipment classes differentiated by the 

use of water in the condenser, DOE 

considers the use of water in the 

condenser to be a feature. For these 

reasons, DOE has no reason to make 

determinations that one equipment type 

is more cost-effective than another type. 

For the final rule, DOE updated the 

calculation of State-level water prices 

with the inclusion of 2013 consumer 

price index values. 

7. Discount Rates 

The discount rate is the rate at which 

future expenditures are discounted to 

establish their present value. DOE 

determined the discount rate by 

estimating the cost of capital for 

purchasers of automatic commercial ice 

makers. Most purchasers use both debt 

and equity capital to fund investments. 

Therefore, for most purchasers, the 

discount rate is the weighted average 

cost of debt and equity financing, or the 

weighted average cost of capital 

(WACC), less the expected inflation. 

DOE received no comments at the 

April 2014 public meeting or in written 

form related to discount rates. 

To estimate the WACC of automatic 

commercial ice maker purchasers for the 

final rule, DOE used a sample of over 

1,400 companies grouped to be 

representative of operators of each of the 

commercial business types (health care, 

lodging, foodservice, retail, education, 

food sales, and offices) drawn from a 

database of 7,765 U.S. companies 

presented on the Damodaran Online 

Web site.40 This database includes most 

of the publicly traded companies in the 

United States. The WACC approach for 

determining discount rates accounts for 

the current tax status of individual firms 

on an overall corporate basis. DOE did 

not evaluate the marginal effects of 

increased costs and the increased 

depreciation due to more expensive 

equipment, on the overall tax status. 

DOE used the final sample of 

companies to represent purchasers of 

automatic commercial ice makers. DOE 

combined company-specific information 

from the Damodaran Online Web site, 

long-term returns on the Standard & 

Poor’s 500 stock market index from the 

Damodaran Online Web site, nominal 

long-term Federal government bond 

rates, and long-term inflation to estimate 

a WACC for each firm in the sample. 

For most educational buildings and a 

portion of the office buildings and 

cafeterias occupied and/or operated by 

public schools, universities, and state 

and local government agencies, DOE 

estimated the cost of capital based on a 

40-year geometric mean of an index of 

long-term (>20 years) tax-exempt 

municipal bonds.41 42 Federal office 

space was assumed to use the Federal 

bond rate, derived as the 40-year 

geometric average of long-term (>10 

years) U.S. government securities.43

DOE recognizes that within the 

business types purchasing automatic 

commercial ice makers there will be 

small businesses with limited access to 

capital markets. Such businesses tend to 

be viewed as higher risk by lenders and 

face higher capital costs as a result. To 

account for this, DOE included an 

additional risk premium for small 

businesses. The premium, 1.9 percent, 

was developed from information found 

on the Small Business Administration 

Web site.44

Chapter 8 of the final rule TSD 

provides more information on the 

derivation of discount rates. The average 

discount rate by business type is shown 

on Table IV.27. 

TABLE IV.27—AVERAGE DISCOUNT

RATE BY BUSINESS TYPE

Business type 

Average 

discount 

rate 

(real) 

(%) 

Health Care .......................... 3.4 

Lodging ................................. 7.9 

Foodservice .......................... 7.1 

Retail ..................................... 5.8 

Education .............................. 4.0 

Food Sales ........................... 6.9 

Office .................................... 6.2 

8. Lifetime 

DOE defines lifetime as the age at 

which typical automatic commercial ice 

maker equipment is retired from service. 

DOE estimated equipment lifetime 

based on its discussion with industry 

experts and concluded a typical lifetime 

of 8.5 years. For the NOPR analyses, 

DOE elected to use an 8.5-year average 

life for all equipment classes. 

DOE received written comments on 

the typical lifetime. Scotsman stated 

continuous units might have a shorter 

typical lifetime than batch type units 

but did not provide estimates of the 

difference. (Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 5b) 

Hoshizaki commented that 8.5 years is 

a good average lifetime assumption. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 3) AHRI 

commented that the average lifespan of 

continuous type ice makers is 7 years 

based on warranty data. (AHRI, No. 93 

at p. 7) NAFEM commented that DOE 

did not use adequate data to justify its 

assumed lifetime of 8.5 years and that 

DOE should study the difference in 

lifetimes between batch type and 

continuous type ice makers. (NAFEM, 

No. 82 at p. 4) 

AHRI and NAFEM both commented 

that the proposed rule will increase the 

size and the cost of automatic 

commercial ice makers, and both 

pointed to the example of air 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4701 

45Arthur D. Little, Inc. Energy Savings for 

Commercial Refrigeration. Final Report. June, 1996. 

Submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building 

Technologies Program. Washington, DC. 

46California Energy Commission. Update of 

Appliance Efficiency Regulations. 2004. 

Sacramento, CA. 

47Fernstrom, G. B. Analysis of Standards Options 

For Commercial Packaged Refrigerators, Freezers, 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Ice Makers: Codes and 

Standards Enhancement Initiative For PY2004: Title 

20 Standards Development. 2004. Prepared by the 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

for Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Francisco, 

CA. 

48 Koeller J., and H. Hoffman. A report on 

Potential Best Management Practices. 2008. 

Prepared by Koeller and Company for the California 

Urban Water Conservation Council, Sacramento, 

CA. 

49Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings 

Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial 

Refrigeration. Final Report. 2009. Submitted to the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program, 

Washington, DC. 

conditioners, where efficiency standards 

led to larger and more expensive units. 

The two stakeholders went on to state 

that annual air conditioner industry 

sales dropped about 18% while repair 

parts sales sharply increased. (NAFEM, 

No. 82 at p. 6 and p. 10; AHRI, No. 93 

at p. 8) Follett commented that the 

proposed rule is so stringent that it 

would create significant hardship for 

manufacturers and could require 

compromises to reliability and 

serviceability, adding that the rule could 

incent end-users to repair rather than 

replace their machines. (Follett, No. 84, 

at p. 1) 

With respect to NAFEM’s comment 

about the adequacy of data, in the 

framework and preliminary analysis 

phases of this rulemaking, DOE 

surveyed the available literature and 

found a range of estimates of 7 to 10 

years, with 8.5 being the average. 

Literature cited on Table IV.28 

suggested lifetimes of up to 20 years or 

more for automatic commercial ice 

makers, and this range was supported 

by discussion with experts. 

TABLE IV.28—ESTIMATES FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER

LIFETIMES

Life Reference 

7 to 10 years ..... Arthur D. Little, 1996.45

8.5 years ............ California Energy Commission, 2004.46

8.5 years ............ Fernstrom, G., 2004.47

8.5 years ............ Koeller J., and H. Hoffman, 2008.48

7 to 10 years ..... Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

2009.49

With regard to the Scotsman’s 

suggestion that continuous type ice 

makers might have shorter life spans, 

DOE found the comment lacking 

sufficient specific information to act on 

the comment. With respect to the AHRI 

comment that continuous equipment 

has a 7-year life, DOE notes that the 

phrase ‘‘based on warranty data’’ 

provided no information that DOE could 

analyze to determine whether to revise 

the assumed equipment lifetime. In 

addition, warranty claims do not 

necessarily correlate with product 

lifetime. For this reason, DOE decided 

based on the previous, generally high 

level of agreement with the 8.5-year 

lifetime to retain that lifetime as the 

basic assumption, and to use the 7-year 

continuous product life for sensitivity 

analyses. 

With respect to the AHRI, NAFEM, 

and Follett comments about 

refurbishment, DOE acknowledges that 

the increased size and prices of 

automatic commercial ice makers 

arising from new and amended 

standards could lead to equipment 

refurbishing or the purchase of used 

equipment. DOE lacks sufficient 

information to explicitly model the 

extent of such refurbishment but 

believes that it would not be significant 

enough to change the rankings of TSLs. 

When DOE performed additional and 

recent research on repair costs before 

issuance of the NODA, contractors 

provided estimates of the hours to 

replace failed components such as 

compressors, but some also stated that 

they recommended replacing the ice 

maker instead of repairing it. In some 

cases the contractor recommendations 

were based on relative repair or 

replacement costs and warranties while 

in other cases they were based on the 

time it would take to get the required, 

specific ice maker components. DOE 

also notes that, given the engineering 

cost curves prepared for the final rule, 

when the baseline efficiency 

distribution of current shipments is 

taken into account, the average total cost 

increase faced by customers at TSL 3 is 

less than 3 percent. For these reasons, 

DOE believes that the degree of 

refurbishing would not be significant 

enough to change the rankings of the 

TSLs considered in this rule. 

9. Compliance Date of Standards 

EPCA prescribes that DOE must 

review and determine whether to amend 

performance-based standards for cube 

type automatic commercial ice makers 

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

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

requires that the amended standards 

established in this rulemaking must 

apply to equipment that is 

manufactured on or after 3 years after 

the final rule is published in the Federal 

Register unless DOE determines, by 

rule, that a 3-year period is inadequate, 

in which case DOE may extend the 

compliance date for that standard by an 

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

6313(d)(3)(C)) For the NOPR analyses, 

based on the January 1, 2015 statutory 

deadline and giving manufacturers 3 

years to meet the new and amended 

standards, DOE assumed that the most 

likely compliance date for the standards 

set by this rulemaking would be January 

1, 2018. As discussed in section IV.A.2, 

DOE received comments about the 

compliance date, including requests to 

provide manufacturers 5 years to meet 

the new and amended standards. As 

stated in section IV.A.2, DOE believes 

that the modifications it made in the 

final rule analysis, relative to the NOPR, 

will reduce the burden on 

manufacturers to meet requirements 

established by this rule. Therefore, DOE 

has determined that the 3-year period is 

adequate and is not extending the 

compliance date for ACIMs. For the 

final rule, a compliance date of January 

1, 2018 was used for the LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

10. Base-Case and Standards-Case 

Efficiency Distributions 

To estimate the share of affected 

customers who would likely be 

impacted by a standard at a particular 

efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis 

considers the projected distribution of 

efficiencies of equipment that customers 

purchase under the base case (that is, 

the case without new energy efficiency 

standards). DOE refers to this 

distribution of equipment efficiencies as 

a base-case efficiency distribution. 

For the NOPR, DOE estimated market 

shares of each efficiency level within 

each equipment class based on an 

analysis of the automatic commercial 

ice makers available for purchase by 

customers. DOE analyzed all models 

available as of November 2012, 

calculated the percentage difference 

between the baseline energy usage 

embodied in the ice maker rulemaking 

analyses, and organized the available 

units by the efficiency levels. DOE then 

calculated the percentage of available 

models falling within each efficiency 

level bin. This efficiency distribution 

was used in the LCC and other 

downstream analyses as the baseline 

efficiency distribution. 

At the NOPR public meeting ASAP 

noted that the efficiency distribution 

used by DOE showed manufacturers can 

manufacture machines meeting the 

efficiency levels proposed in the NOPR. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4702 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

70 at p. 256–257) Ice-O-Matic and 

Manitowoc stated that the distribution 

showed available equipment, but the 

equipment at the higher efficiencies 

might have small shipments relative to 

other efficiency levels. (Ice-O-Matic, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

260; Manitowoc, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 261–263) 

Hoshizaki commented that DOE’s 

shipments analysis would be more 

accurate if DOE requested actual 

shipment data under NDA from 

manufacturers each year. (Hoshizaki, 

No. 86 at p. 4) At the public meeting, 

manufacturers and AHRI agreed to 

compile shipments information by 

efficiency level. 

In written comments, AHRI supplied 

such information for batch type 

equipment. AHRI also stated that DOE 

should not use available models in the 

AHRI database to estimate shipmentweighted market shares by efficiency 

levels for batch type units, because by 

doing so, DOE overestimates potential 

energy savings by 11.3% or more. 

(AHRI, No. 93 at p. 8–9) 

For the final rule, DOE used the 

efficiency distribution for batch type 

equipment provided by AHRI. While 

DOE did not analyze AHRI’s statement 

of the overestimate of savings, DOE does 

consider the shipment-based 

distribution superior to the availableunit-based distribution. Lacking a 

similar shipment-based distribution for 

continuous equipment classes, DOE 

used an available-unit-based 

distribution for continuous equipment 

classes for the final rule. 

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

Payback period is the amount of time 

it takes the customer to recover the 

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

operating costs. Numerically, the PBP is 

the ratio of the increase in purchase cost 

to the decrease in annual operating 

expenditures. This type of calculation is 

known as a ‘‘simple’’ PBP because it 

does not take into account changes in 

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

of changing cost of electricity) or the 

time value of money; that is, the 

calculation is done at an effective 

discount rate of zero percent. PBPs are 

expressed in years. PBPs greater than 

the life of the equipment mean that the 

increased total installed cost of the 

more-efficient equipment is not 

recovered in reduced operating costs 

over the life of the equipment, given the 

conditions specified within the analysis, 

such as electricity prices. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation are 

the total installed cost to the customer 

of the equipment for each efficiency 

level and the average annual operating 

expenditures for each efficiency level in 

the first year. The PBP calculation uses 

the same inputs as the LCC analysis, 

except that discount rates are not used. 

In written comments, Earthjustice 

stated that DOE inappropriately used a 

3-year payback period as an upper limit 

for an acceptable customer impact 

without providing a justification for 

such, and that DOE should revise its 

approach for using payback period. 

(Earthjustice, No. 81, pp. 1–2) DOE 

acknowledges the comment and notes 

that, for the NOPR, DOE intended the 

use of the payback period as an 

illustration of the relatively significant 

differences between the impacts of 

TSLs. 

12. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

Period 

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

6313(d)(4)) established a rebuttable 

presumption that new or amended 

standards are economically justified if 

the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings that the consumer will receive 

during the first year as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. 

While DOE examined the rebuttable 

presumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

are economically justified through a 

more detailed analysis of the economic 

impacts of these levels pursuant to 42 

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

The results of this analysis served as the 

basis for DOE to evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level definitively (thereby supporting or 

rebutting the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). 

H. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

NPV of total customer costs and savings 

that would be expected as a result of the 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The NES and NPV are 

analyzed at specific efficiency levels 

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

automatic commercial ice makers. DOE 

calculates the NES and NPV based on 

projections of annual equipment 

shipments, along with the annual 

energy consumption and total installed 

cost data from the LCC analysis. For the 

NOPR analysis, DOE forecasted the 

energy savings, operating cost savings, 

equipment costs, and NPV of customer 

benefits for equipment sold from 2018 

through 2047—the year in which the 

last standards-compliant equipment is 

shipped during the 30-year analysis. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of the new 

and amended standards by comparing 

base-case projections with standardscase projections. The base-case 

projections characterize energy use and 

customer costs for each equipment class 

in the absence of any new or amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

compares these base-case projections 

with projections characterizing the 

market for each equipment class if DOE 

adopted the amended standards at each 

TSL. For the standards cases, DOE 

assumed a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario in which 

equipment at efficiency levels that do 

not meet the standard level under 

consideration would ‘‘roll up’’ to the 

efficiency level that just meets the 

proposed standard level, and equipment 

already being purchased at efficiency 

levels at or above the proposed standard 

level would remain unaffected. 

DOE uses a Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheet model to calculate the 

energy savings and the national 

customer costs and savings from each 

TSL. Final rule TSD chapter 10 and 

appendix 10A explain the models and 

how to use them, and interested parties 

can review DOE’s analyses by 

interacting with these spreadsheets. The 

models and documentation are available 

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

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/29. 

The NIA spreadsheet model uses 

average values as inputs (rather than 

probability distributions of key input 

parameters from a set of possible 

values). For the current analysis, the 

NIA used projections of energy prices 

and commercial building starts from the 

AEO2014 Reference Case. In addition, 

DOE analyzed scenarios that used 

inputs from the AEO2014 Low 

Economic Growth and High Economic 

Growth Cases. These cases have lower 

and higher energy price trends, 

respectively, compared to the Reference 

Case. NIA results based on these cases 

are presented in chapter 10 of the final 

rule TSD. 

A detailed description of the 

procedure to calculate NES and NPV 

and inputs for this analysis are provided 

in chapter 10 of the final rule TSD. 

1. Shipments 

Comments related to the shipment 

analysis received at the April 2014 

public meeting were all questions for 

clarification. The following description 

of the shipments projection presents the 

shipments analysis for the final rule. 

The process described in this section 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4703 

50Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings 

Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial 

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

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

was documented and released for 

comments in the NODA. 

DOE obtained data from AHRI, 

ENERGY STAR, and U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Current Industrial Reports 

(CIR) to estimate historical shipments 

for automatic commercial ice makers. 

AHRI provided DOE with automatic 

commercial ice maker shipment data for 

2010 describing the distribution of 

shipments by equipment class and by 

harvest capacity. AHRI data provided to 

DOE also included an 11-year history of 

total shipments from 2000 to 2010. DOE 

also collected total automatic 

commercial ice maker shipment data for 

the period of 1973 to 2009 from the CIR. 

Additionally, DOE collected 2008–2012 

data on ACIM shipments under the 

ENERGY STAR program. The ENERGY 

STAR data consisted of numbers of 

units meeting ENERGY STAR efficiency 

levels and the percent of the total 

market represented, from which the 

total market could be estimated. 

ENERGY STAR shipments only 

pertained to air-cooled batch 

equipment. 

In the preliminary analysis phase, 

DOE relied extensively on the CIR 

shipments data for the shipments 

projection. Subsequent to receiving 

comments on the preliminary analysis 

shipments, DOE relied more heavily on 

AHRI data for the NOPR and for the 

final rule shipments projections. After 

the NOPR analyses were completed, 

analysis of ENERGY STAR data led DOE 

to conclude that the AHRI data 

understates shipments by approximately 

9 percent and that the difference was 

likely due to a greater number of 

manufacturers represented in the 

ENERGY STAR results. However, the 

AHRI data gives significantly greater 

detail than the ENERGY STAR data. 

Therefore, the final rule and the NOPR 

methodologies are identical except for 

an upward adjustment of the historical 

AHRI data by 9 percent to correct for the 

presumed under-reporting of non-AHRImembers. 

To determine the percentage of 

shipments going to replace existing 

stock and the percentage represented by 

new installations, DOE used the CIR 

data to create a series of estimates of 

total existing stock by aggregating 

historical shipments across 8.5-year 

historical periods. DOE used the CIR 

data to estimate a time series of 

shipments and total stock for 1994 to 

2006—at the time of the analysis, the 

last year of data available without 

significant gaps in the data due to 

disclosure limitations. For each year, 

using shipments, stock, and the 8.5-year 

life of the equipment, DOE estimated 

that, on average, 14 percent of 

shipments were for new installations 

and the remainder for replacement of 

existing stock. 

DOE then used the historical AHRI 

shipments to create a 2010 stock 

estimate. The 2010 stock and 2010 

shipments from AHRI, disaggregated 

between new installations and 

shipments for existing stock 

replacement, were combined with 

projections of new construction activity 

from AEO2014 to generate a forecast of 

shipments for new installations. Stock 

and shipments were first disaggregated 

to individual business types based on 

data developed for DOE on commercial 

ice maker stocks.50 The business types 

and share of stock represented by each 

type are shown in Table IV.29. Using a 

Weibull distribution assuming that 

equipment has an average life of 8.5 

years and lasts from 5 to 11 years, DOE 

developed a 30-year series of 

replacement ice maker shipments using 

the AHRI historical series. Using the 

estimated 2010 shipments to new 

installations, and year-to-year changes 

in new commercial sector floor space 

additions from AEO2014, DOE 

estimated future shipments for new 

installations. (For the NOPR, DOE used 

AEO2013 projections of floor space 

additions.) The AEO2014 floor space 

additions by building type are shown in 

Table IV.30. The combination of the 

replacement and new installation 

shipments yields total shipments. The 

final step was to distribute total sales to 

equipment classes by multiplying the 

total shipments by percentage shares by 

class. Table IV.31 shows the percentages 

represented by all equipment classes, 

both the primary classes modeled 

explicitly in all NOPR analyses as well 

as the secondary classes. 

TABLE IV.29—BUSINESS TYPES

INCLUDED IN SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Building type 

Building type 

as percent of 

stock 

(%) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE IV.30—AEO2014 FORECAST OF NEW BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE

Year 

New construction 

million ft2

Health Care Lodging Foodservice Retail Education Food sales Office 

2013 ............................. 66 147 31 279 247 21 174 

2018 ............................. 67 164 51 428 209 36 411 

2020 ............................. 65 176 47 404 197 33 451 

2025 ............................. 63 181 48 444 169 34 392 

2030 ............................. 71 150 55 515 190 39 276 

2035 ............................. 72 207 57 527 228 40 415 

2040 ............................. 76 188 56 565 252 40 403 

Annual Growth Factor, 

2031–2040 ................ 2.4% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 1.7% 2.3% 2.1% 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4704 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.31—PERCENT OF SHIPPED

UNITS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL

ICE MAKERS

Equipment class 

Percentage of 

shipments 

(%) 

IMH–W–Small–B .................. 4.54 

IMH–W–Med–B .................... 2.90 

IMH–W–Large–B .................. 0.48 

IMH–A–Small–B ................... 27.08 

IMH–A–Large–B ................... 16.14 

RCU–Small–B ....................... 5.43 

RCU–RC/NC–Large–B ......... 6.08 

SCU–W–Small–B ................. 0.68 

SCU–W–Large–B ................. 0.22 

SCU–A–Small–B .................. 13.85 

SCU–A–Large–B .................. 6.56 

IMH–W–Small–C .................. 0.68 

IMH–W–Large–C .................. 0.17 

IMH–A–Small–C ................... 3.53 

IMH–A–Large–C ................... 1.07 

RCU–Small–C ...................... 0.83 

TABLE IV.31—PERCENT OF SHIPPED

UNITS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL

ICE MAKERS—Continued 

Equipment class 

Percentage of 

shipments 

(%) 

RCU–Large–C ...................... 0.87 

SCU–W–Small–C ................. 0.15 

SCU–W–Large–C ................. 0.00 

SCU–A–Small–C .................. 8.75 

SCU–A–Large–C .................. 0.00 

Total ............................... 100.00 

Source: AHRI, 2010 Shipments data submitted to DOE as part of this rulemaking. 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

The method for estimating the market 

share distribution of efficiency levels is 

presented in section IV.G.10, and a 

detailed description can be found in 

chapter 10 of the final rule TSD. To 

estimate efficiency trends in the 

standards cases, DOE uses a ‘‘roll-up’’ 

scenario in its standards rulemakings. 

Under the ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario, DOE 

assumes that equipment efficiencies in 

the base case that do not meet the 

standard level under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to the efficiency level 

that just meets the proposed standard 

level, and equipment already being 

purchased at efficiencies at or above the 

standard level under consideration 

would be unaffected. Table IV.32 shows 

the shipment-weighted market shares by 

efficiency level in the base-case 

scenario. 

TABLE IV.32—SHIPMENT-WEIGHTED MARKET SHARES BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL, BASE CASE

Equipment class 

Market share by efficiency level 

Percent 

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3A Level 4 Level 4A Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 

IMH–W–Small–B .......................... 37.1 15.6 44.8 ................ 2.5 0.0 0.0 ................ ................

IMH–W–Med–B ............................ 55.8 20.0 15.3 ................ 8.9 ................ ................ ................ ................

IMH–W–Large–B 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 .............. 87.2 12.8 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

IMH–W–Large–B–2 .............. 87.2 12.8 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

IMH–A–Small–B ........................... 23.7 29.5 46.8 0.0 0.0 ................ 0.0 0.0 ................

IMH–A–Large–B 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 ............... 34.1 27.8 35.1 0.3 2.7 ................ ................ ................ ................

IMH–A–Large–B–2 ............... 16.8 22.5 60.8 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

RCU–Large–B 

RCU–Large–B–1 ................... 43.9 36.4 18.8 ................ 1.0 ................ ................ ................ ................

RCU–Large–B–2 ................... 43.9 36.4 18.8 ................ 1.0 ................ ................ ................ ................

SCU–W–Large–B ......................... 71.6 0.6 0.0 ................ 22.5 ................ 5.4 0.0 ................

SCU–A–Small–B .......................... 51.8 15.3 12.9 ................ 8.0 ................ 12.0 0.0 0.0 

SCU–A–Large–B .......................... 62.6 14.8 21.5 ................ 0.0 ................ 1.1 0.0 ................

IMH–A–Small–C ........................... 30.6 11.1 19.4 ................ 5.6 ................ 19.4 13.9 ................

IMH–A–Large–C .......................... 43.5 21.7 17.4 ................ 8.7 ................ 8.7 ................ ................

RCU–Small–C .............................. 27.8 27.8 33.3 ................ 5.6 ................ 0.0 5.6 ................

SCU–A–Small–C .......................... 44.1 8.8 14.7 ................ 17.6 ................ 14.7 0.0 ................

3. National Energy Savings 

For each year in the forecast period, 

DOE calculates the NES for each TSL by 

multiplying the stock of equipment 

affected by the energy conservation 

standards by the estimated per-unit 

annual energy savings. DOE typically 

considers the impact of a rebound effect, 

introduced in the energy use analysis, in 

its calculation of NES for a given 

product. A rebound effect occurs when 

users operate higher-efficiency 

equipment more frequently and/or for 

longer durations, thus offsetting 

estimated energy savings. When a 

rebound effect occurs, it is generally 

because the users of the equipment 

perceive it as less costly to use the 

equipment and elect to use it more 

intensively. In the case of automatic 

commercial ice makers, users of the 

equipment include restaurant wait staff, 

hotel guests, cafeteria patrons, or 

hospital staff using ice in the treatment 

of patients. Users of automatic 

commercial ice makers tend to have 

little or no perception of or personal 

stake in the cost of the ice and rather are 

using the ice to serve a specific need. 

Given this, DOE believes there is very 

little or no potential for a rebound 

effect. For the NIA, DOE used a rebound 

factor of 1, or no effect, for automatic 

commercial ice makers. 

At the NOPR phase, the only 

comment regarding rebound effect was 

from the Policy Analyst. Policy Analyst 

stated that DOE should evaluate 

whether there was a rebound effect 

caused by the previous standard. (Policy 

Analyst, No. 75 at p. 10) As stated 

above, DOE believes that the users of 

ACIM equipment would not perceive 

the price effects, so DOE believes 

rebound effect should not be present for 

this equipment and does not believe 

further analysis is necessary. 

Inputs to the calculation of NES are 

annual unit energy consumption, 

shipments, equipment stock, and a siteto-source conversion factor. 

The annual unit energy consumption 

is the site energy consumed by an 

automatic commercial ice maker unit in 

a given year. Using the efficiency of 

units at each efficiency level and the 

baseline efficiency distribution, DOE 

determined annual forecasted shipmentweighted average equipment efficiencies 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4705 

51 Docket ID: EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028, 

comment by Kirk Lundblade. 

that, in turn, enabled determination of 

shipment-weighted annual energy 

consumption values. 

The automatic commercial ice makers 

stock in a given year is the total number 

of automatic commercial ice makers 

shipped from earlier years (up to 12 

years earlier) that remain in use in that 

year. The NES spreadsheet model keeps 

track of the total units shipped each 

year. For purposes of the NES and NPV 

analyses in the NOPR analysis, DOE 

assumed that, based on an 8.5-year 

average equipment lifetimes, 

approximately 12 percent of the existing 

automatic commercial ice makers are 

retired and replaced in each year. DOE 

assumes that, for units shipped in 2047, 

any units still remaining at the end of 

2055 will be replaced. 

DOE uses a multiplicative factor 

called ‘‘site-to-source conversion factor’’ 

to convert site energy consumption (at 

the commercial building) into primary 

or source energy consumption (the 

energy input at the energy generation 

station required to convert and deliver 

the energy required at the site of 

consumption). These site-to-source 

conversion factors account for the 

energy used at power plants to generate 

electricity and for the losses in 

transmission and distribution, as well as 

for natural gas losses from pipeline 

leakage and energy used for pumping. 

For electricity, the conversion factors 

vary over time due to projected changes 

in generation sources (that is, the power 

plant types projected to provide 

electricity to the country). The factors 

that DOE developed are marginal 

values, which represent the response of 

the system to an incremental decrease in 

consumption associated with amended 

energy conservation standards. 

For this final rule, DOE used 

conversion factors based on the U.S. 

energy sector modeling using the 

National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) Building Technologies (NEMS– 

BT) version that corresponds to 

AEO2014 and which provides national 

energy forecasts through 2040. Within 

the results of NEMS–BT model runs 

performed by DOE, a site-to-source ratio 

for commercial refrigeration was 

developed. The site-to-source ratio was 

held constant beyond 2040 through the 

end of the analysis period (30 years plus 

the life of equipment). 

DOE has historically presented NES 

in terms of primary energy savings. In 

response to the recommendations of a 

committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and FullFuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to 

Energy Efficiency Standards’’ appointed 

by the National Academy of Science, 

DOE announced its intention to use fullfuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy use 

and greenhouse gas and other emissions 

in the national impact analyses and 

emissions analyses included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (August 18, 

2011) After evaluating both models and 

the approaches discussed in the August 

18, 2011, notice, DOE published a 

statement of amended policy in the 

Federal Register in which DOE 

explained its determination that NEMS 

is a more appropriate tool for its FFC 

analysis and its intention to use NEMS 

for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (August 

17, 2012). DOE received one comment, 

which was supportive of the use of 

NEMS for DOE’s FFC analysis.51

The approach used for this final rule, 

and the FFC multipliers that were 

applied are described in appendix 10D 

of the final rule TSD. NES results are 

presented in both primary and in terms 

of FFC savings. The savings by TSL are 

summarized in terms of FFC savings in 

section I.C. 

4. Net Present Value of Customer 

Benefit 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by customers of the 

automatic commercial ice makers are (1) 

total annual installed cost; (2) total 

annual savings in operating costs; and 

(3) a discount factor. DOE calculated net 

national customer savings for each year 

as the difference in installation and 

operating costs between the base-case 

scenario and standards-case scenarios. 

DOE calculated operating cost savings 

over the life of each piece of equipment 

shipped in the forecast period. 

DOE multiplied monetary values in 

future years by the discount factor to 

determine the present value of costs and 

savings. DOE estimated national 

impacts with both a 3-percent and a 7- 

percent real discount rate as the average 

real rate of return on private investment 

in the U.S. economy. These discount 

rates are used in accordance with the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) guidance to Federal agencies on 

the development of regulatory analysis 

(OMB Circular A–4, September 17, 

2003), and section E, ‘‘Identifying and 

Measuring Benefits and Costs,’’ therein. 

DOE defined the present year as 2013 

for the NOPR analysis. The 7-percent 

real value is an estimate of the average 

before-tax rate of return to private 

capital in the U.S. economy. DOE used 

the 3-percent rate to capture the 

potential effects of the new and 

amended standards on private 

consumption. This rate represents the 

‘‘societal rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present. 

DOE received one comment from IceO-Matic stating that the 7-percent 

discount rate was too high when the 

current prime rate is 3.25 percent and 

the current Treasury bill rate is 3.67 

percent. (Ice-O-Matic, No. 120, p. 1; IceO-Matic, No. 121, p. 1) Ice-O-Matic also 

indicated that the use of 7-percent 

discount rate inflated the rate of return 

experienced by customers. (Ice-O-Matic, 

No. 120, p. 1) 

As Ice-O-Matic noted, the discount 

rate is high relative to current interest 

rates. However, DOE suspects that the 

comments misinterpreted the use of the 

discount rate. In this case, the discount 

rate is used to express a given number 

of future dollars as an equivalent 

number of dollars today, whereas the 

comments seemed to assume the 

discount rate was used as an interest 

rate to express a given number of dollars 

today as a future value equivalent. Since 

the 7-percent discount rate that DOE 

used in the NIA is used in accordance 

with OMB guidelines, DOE will 

continue using it in the NIA. 

As discussed in section IV.G.1, DOE 

included a projection of price trends in 

the preliminary analysis NIA. For the 

NOPR, DOE reviewed and updated the 

analysis with the result that the 

projected reference case downward 

trend in prices is quite modest. For the 

NOPR, DOE also developed high and 

low case price trend projections, as 

discussed in final rule TSD appendix 

10B. 

I. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

commercial customers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable groups (i.e., 

subgroups) of customers, such as 

different types of businesses that may be 

disproportionately affected. Small 

businesses typically face a higher cost of 

capital. In general, the lower the cost of 

electricity and higher the cost of capital, 

the more likely it is that an entity would 

be disadvantaged by the requirement to 

purchase higher efficiency equipment. 

Based on the data available to DOE, 

automatic commercial ice maker 

ownership in three building types 

represent over 70 percent of the market: 

Food sales, foodservice, and hotels. 

Based on data from the 2007 U.S. 

Economic Census and size standards set 

by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA), DOE determined 

that a majority of food sales, foodservice 

and lodging firms fall under the 

definition of small businesses. Chapter 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4706 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

52U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Annual 10–K Reports. Various Years. http://sec.gov. 

53U.S.Census Bureau, Annual Survey of 

Manufacturers: General Statistics: Statistics for 

Industry Groups and Industries. http://factfinder2.

census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/

searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t. 

54Hoovers Inc. Company Profiles. Various 

Companies. http://www.hoovers.com. 

8 of the TSD presents the electricity 

price by business type and discount 

rates by building types, respectively, 

while chapter 11 discusses these topics 

as they specifically relate to small 

businesses. 

Comparing the foodservice, food 

sales, and lodging categories, 

foodservice faces the highest energy 

price, with food sales and lodging facing 

lower and nearly the same energy 

prices. Lodging faces the highest cost of 

capital. Foodservice faces a higher cost 

of capital than food sales. Given the cost 

of capital disparity, lodging was 

selected for LCC subgroup analysis. 

With foodservice facing a higher cost of 

capital, it was selected for LCC 

subgroup analysis because the higher 

cost of capital should lead foodservice 

customers to value first cost more and 

future electricity savings less than 

would be the case for food sales 

customers. 

Three written comments specifically 

focused on the customer subgroups, all 

three specifically focusing on the food 

service industry. U.S. Senator Toomey 

commented that the proposed rule will 

negatively impact employment in the 

food services industry, which is 

dominated by small businesses, and that 

restaurant owners would already 

purchase efficient products if they were 

going to be able to recoup the higher 

prices through savings. (U.S. Senator 

Toomey, No. 79 at p. 1) NRA 

commented that the cost of new 

standards could be greater for small 

businesses, due to increased capital, 

maintenance, repair, and installation 

costs, thus affecting their payback 

period. (NRA, No. 69 at p. 2–3) NAFEM 

commented that the proposed rule will 

affect the food service industry, which 

is also dominated by small businesses, 

because they will not be able to afford 

equipment upgrades and will choose to 

extend the life of used equipment. 

(NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 5) 

With respect to the issue of negative 

employment impacts, if the standard 

has a positive LCC benefit to the food 

service customer, such an impact 

should not reduce employment. DOE 

notes that the LCC analysis looks strictly 

at the net economic impact of a 

hypothetical purchase of equipment and 

does not look specifically at 

employment. However, if the analysis 

shows a net LCC benefit, the food 

service customer should be better off 

and presumably such result should not 

negatively impact employment. DOE 

agrees with the NRA comment that the 

cost of new standards could be greater 

for small businesses and notes the 

analysis of the impacts is precisely the 

point of the customer subgroup analysis. 

With respect to NAFEM’s comment 

regarding small business’s inability to 

afford the equipment upgrades, if the 

results indicate positive LCC benefits 

the presumption is that the customer’s 

financial situation is improved with the 

more efficient equipment when 

compared to less efficient equipment. 

DOE lacks information with which to 

estimate the extent to which customers 

might choose to extend the life of 

equipment, but believes that given the 

relatively modest average price increase 

of the proposed standard 

(approximately 3 percent) in 

combination with the customer energy 

savings, the proportion of customers 

who would choose life extension is 

small. 

DOE estimated the impact on the 

identified customer subgroups using the 

LCC spreadsheet model. The standard 

LCC and PBP analyses (described in 

section IV.F) include various types of 

businesses that use automatic 

commercial ice makers. For the LCC 

subgroup analysis, it was assumed that 

the subgroups analyzed do not have 

access to national purchasing accounts 

or to major capital markets thereby 

making the discount rates higher for 

these subgroups. Details of the data used 

for LCC subgroup analysis and results 

are presented in chapter 11 of the TSD. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impacts of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers. The MIA has both 

quantitative and qualitative aspects and 

includes analyses of forecasted industry 

cash flows, the INPV, investments in 

research and development (R&D) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how amended energy 

conservation standards might affect 

manufacturing employment, capacity, 

and competition, as well as how 

standards contribute to overall 

regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 

serves to identify any disproportionate 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups, in 

particular, small businesses. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and investments in R&D and 

manufacturing capital required to 

produce compliant products. A key 

GRIM output is the INPV, which is the 

sum of industry annual cash flows over 

the analysis period, discounted using 

the industry weighted average cost of 

capital. Another key output is the 

impact to domestic manufacturing 

employment. The model estimates the 

impacts of more-stringent energy 

conservation standards on a given 

industry by comparing changes in INPV 

and domestic manufacturing 

employment between a base case and 

the various TSLs in the standards case. 

To capture the uncertainty relating to 

manufacturer pricing strategy following 

amended standards, the GRIM estimates 

a range of possible impacts under 

different markup scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on small business 

manufacturers. The complete MIA is 

outlined in chapter 12 of the final rule 

TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 

of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of 

the automatic commercial ice maker 

industry. This included a top-down cost 

analysis of automatic commercial ice 

maker manufacturers that DOE used to 

derive preliminary financial inputs for 

the GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, 

labor, overhead, and depreciation 

expenses; selling, general, and 

administrative expenses (SG&A); and 

R&D expenses). DOE also used public 

sources of information to further 

calibrate its initial characterization of 

the automatic commercial ice maker 

industry, including company Securities 

and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K 

filings,52 corporate annual reports, the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic 

Census,53 and Hoover’s reports.54

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash flow analysis 

to quantify the impacts of new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses several 

factors to determine a series of annual 

cash flows starting with the 

announcement of the standard and 

extending over a 30-year period 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4707 

following the effective date of the 

standard. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) Create a need for increased 

investment; (2) raise production costs 

per unit; and (3) alter revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers in order to 

develop other key GRIM inputs, 

including product and capital 

conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with a representative crosssection of manufacturers. During these 

interviews, DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3, 

DOE also evaluated subgroups of 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by 

amended standards or that may not be 

accurately represented by the average 

cost assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash flow analysis. Such 

manufacturer subgroups may include 

small manufacturers, low volume 

manufacturers, niche players, and/or 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that largely differs from the 

industry average. 

DOE identified one subgroup, small 

manufacturers, for which average cost 

assumptions may not hold. DOE applied 

the small business size standards 

published by the SBA to determine 

whether a company is considered a 

small business. 65 FR 30836 (May 15, 

2000), as amended by 65 FR 53533 

(Sept. 5, 2000) and 67 FR 52597 (Aug. 

13, 2002), as codified at 13 CFR part 

121. The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines a small business for North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing,’’ which includes 

commercial ice maker manufacturing, as 

having 750 or fewer employees. The 

750-employee threshold includes all 

employees in a business’s parent 

company and any other subsidiaries. 

Based on this classification, DOE 

identified seven manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers that 

qualify as small businesses. The 

automatic commercial ice maker small 

manufacturer subgroup is discussed in 

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD and in 

section VI.B.1 of this rulemaking. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in industry cash flows resulting 

from new or amended energy 

conservation standards. The GRIM uses 

manufacturer costs, markups, 

shipments, and industry financial 

information to arrive at a series of basecase annual cash flows absent new or 

amended standards, beginning in 2015 

and continuing through 2047. The GRIM 

then models changes in costs, 

investments, shipments, and 

manufacturer margins that may result 

from new or amended energy 

conservation standards and compares 

these results against those in the basecase forecast of annual cash flows. The 

primary quantitative output of the GRIM 

is the INPV, which DOE calculates by 

summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows over the full 

analysis period. For manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers, DOE 

used a real discount rate of 9.2 percent, 

based on the weighted average cost of 

capital as derived from industry 

financials and feedback received during 

confidential interviews with 

manufacturers. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

base case and each TSL. The difference 

in INPV between the base case and a 

standards case represents the financial 

impact of the amended standard on 

manufacturers at that particular TSL. As 

discussed previously, DOE collected the 

necessary information to develop key 

GRIM inputs from a number of sources, 

including publicly available data and 

interviews with manufacturers 

(described in the next section). The 

GRIM results are shown in section 

V.B.2.a. Additional details about the 

GRIM can be found in chapter 12 of the 

final rule TSD. 

a. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Key Inputs 

Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing higher efficiency 

equipment is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline equipment 

due to the use of more complex, and 

typically more costly, components. The 

changes in the MPCs of the analyzed 

equipment can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry, 

making production cost data key GRIM 

inputs for DOE’s analysis. 

For each efficiency level of each 

equipment class that was directly 

analyzed, DOE used the MPCs 

developed in the engineering analysis, 

as described in section IV.B and further 

detailed in chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD. For equipment classes that were 

indirectly analyzed, DOE used a 

composite of MPCs from similar 

equipment classes, substitute 

component costs, and design options to 

develop an MPC for each efficiency 

level. For equipment classes that had 

multiple units analyzed, DOE used a 

weighted average MPC based on the 

relative shipments of products at each 

efficiency level as the input for the 

GRIM. Additionally, DOE used 

information from its reverse engineering 

analysis, described in section IV.D.4, to 

disaggregate the MPCs into material and 

labor costs. These cost breakdowns and 

equipment markups were validated with 

manufacturers during manufacturer 

interviews. 

Base-Case Shipments Forecast 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

forecasts and the distribution of 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For the base-case 

analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA’s 

annual shipment forecasts from 2015, 

the base year, to 2047, the end of the 

analysis period. See chapter 9 of the 

final rule TSD for additional details. 

Product Conversion Costs, Capital 

Conversion Costs, and Stranded Assets 

New and amended energy 

conservation standards will cause 

manufacturers to incur conversion costs 

to bring their production facilities and 

product designs into compliance. For 

the MIA, DOE classified these 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Product conversion costs and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion costs include investments in 

research, development, testing, 

marketing, and other non-capitalized 

costs necessary to make product designs 

comply with new or amended energy 

conservation standards. Capital 

conversion costs include investments in 

property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

product designs can be fabricated and 

assembled. 

If new or amended energy 

conservation standards require 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4708 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

investment in new manufacturing 

capital, there also exists the possibility 

that they will render existing 

manufacturing capital obsolete. In the 

case that this obsolete manufacturing 

capital is not fully depreciated at the 

time new or amended standards go into 

effect, this would result in the stranding 

of these assets, and would necessitate 

the write-down of their residual undepreciated value. 

DOE used multiple sources of data to 

evaluate the level of product and capital 

conversion costs and stranded assets 

manufacturers would likely face to 

comply with new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE used 

manufacturer interviews to gather data 

on the level of investment anticipated at 

each proposed efficiency level and 

validated these assumptions using 

estimates of capital requirements 

derived from the product teardown 

analysis and engineering model 

described in section IV.D.4. These 

estimates were then aggregated and 

scaled using information gained from 

industry product databases to derive 

total industry estimates of product and 

capital conversion costs and to protect 

confidential information. 

In general, DOE assumes that all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year the final rule is 

published and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new or amended standards. The 

investment figures used in the GRIM 

can be found in section V.B.2.a of this 

preamble. For additional information on 

the estimated product conversion and 

capital conversion costs, see chapter 12 

of the final rule TSD. 

b. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

Scenarios 

Markup Scenarios 

As discussed in section IV.J.2.b MSPs 

include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, material, 

overhead, and depreciation estimated in 

DOE’s MPCs) and all non-production 

costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), 

along with profit. To calculate the MSPs 

in the GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer 

markups to the MPCs estimated in the 

engineering analysis. Modifying these 

markups in the standards case yields 

different sets of impacts on 

manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE 

modeled two standards-case markup 

scenarios to represent the uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts on 

prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) A 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

markup scenario; and (2) a preservation 

of earnings before interest and taxes 

(EBIT) markup scenario. These 

scenarios lead to different markups 

values that, when applied to the MPCs, 

result in varying revenue and cash flow 

impacts. 

Under the preservation of gross 

margin percentage scenario, DOE 

applied a single, uniform ‘‘gross margin 

percentage’’ markup across all efficiency 

levels. As production costs increase 

with efficiency, this scenario implies 

that the absolute dollar markup will 

increase as well. Based on publicly 

available financial information for 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers and comments from 

manufacturer interviews, DOE assumed 

the industry average markup on 

production costs to be 1.25. Because this 

markup scenario assumes that 

manufacturers would be able to 

maintain their gross margin percentage 

as production costs increase in response 

to new and amended energy 

conservation standards, it represents a 

lower bound of industry impacts (higher 

industry profitability) under new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

In the preservation of EBIT markup 

scenario, manufacturer markups are 

calibrated so that EBIT in the year after 

the compliance date of the amended 

energy conservation standard is the 

same as in the base case. Under this 

scenario, as the cost of production goes 

up, manufacturers are generally 

required to reduce the markups on their 

minimally compliant products to 

maintain a cost-competitive offering. 

The implicit assumption behind this 

scenario is that the industry can only 

maintain EBIT in absolute dollars after 

compliance with the amended standard 

is required. Therefore, operating margin 

(as a percentage) shrinks in the 

standards cases. This markup scenario 

represents an upper bound of industry 

impacts (lower profitability) under an 

amended energy conservation standard. 

3. Discussion of Comments 

During the NOPR public meeting, 

interested parties commented on the 

assumptions and results of the analyses 

in the NOPR TSD. In addition, 

interested parties submitted written 

comments on the assumptions and 

results of the NOPR TSD and NODA. 

DOE summarizes the MIA related 

comments below: 

a. Conversion Costs 

At the NOPR Stage, several 

stakeholders pointed out high capital 

costs and intense redesign efforts would 

be required by the proposed standards. 

Hoshizaki commented that many of the 

design options suggested in this 

rulemaking would require 

manufacturers to modify or buy new 

tooling and grow packaging, pallets, and 

conveyor belts to accommodate larger 

machines. Hoshizaki noted that these 

costs would compound to over $20 

million in the first year. (Hoshizaki, No. 

86 at p. 7–8) Ice-O-Matic commented 

that DOE should directly consider the 

capital expenditures associated with 

tooling changes as it is a discrete 

expense that is not planned from year to 

year. (Ice-O-Matic, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 70 at p. 88) 

As suggested by Ice-O-Matic, DOE 

does consider conversion expenses to be 

one-time expenditures that are not 

planned from year-to-year. DOE models 

conversion investments, including 

capital expenditures, as occurring 

between the announcement year and 

standards year. These investments result 

in decreases in operating profit, free 

cash flow, and INPV. DOE’s conversion 

cost estimates account for all production 

line modifications associated with the 

design options considered in the 

engineering analysis including changes 

in conveyor, equipment, and tooling. 

For the final rule, DOE made changes to 

the considered design options based on 

feedback from the industry. DOE 

believes the changes in design options 

will reduce the capital requirements on 

industry. 

Several manufacturers noted that a 

significant portion of their product lines 

would require redesign in order to meet 

the standard levels proposed in the 

NOPR. Specifically, Manitowoc 

commented that 90% of its models 

would require a major redesign to meet 

the proposed standards. (Manitowoc, 

No. 92 at p. 2–3) Similarly, Hoshizaki 

commented that about 80% of their 

continuous type units would not be able 

to meet the proposed standards. 

(Hoshizaki, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 70 at p. 74) Hoshizaki noted in a 

written comment that over 75% of units 

on the market will be unable to meet the 

proposed standard. (Hoshizaki, No. 86 

at p. 1) Scotsman commented that 97% 

of their product line would need to be 

replaced in order to achieve the 

proposed efficiency levels. (Scotsman, 

No. 85 at p. 2b) Emerson estimated 70% 

of the batch ice machines would need 

some amount of redesign in order to 

meet the proposed minimum efficiency 

levels at the NOPR stage. (Emerson, No. 

122 at p. 1) AHRI commented that 99% 

of the existing batch type market would 

be eliminated if the proposed TSL 3 

became effective and that the impact of 

NOPR TSL 3 would lead to industry 

consolidation, loss of jobs, and loss of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4709 

international sales. (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 

10–12) NAFEM noted general concerns 

about product obsolescence at the NOPR 

levels. (NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 2) 

Between the NOPR and the Final 

Rule, DOE revised and updated its 

analysis based on stakeholders 

comments received at the NOPR public 

meeting, in additional manufacturer 

interviews, and in written responses to 

the NOPR and NODA. These updates 

included changes in its approach to 

calculating the energy use associated 

with groups of design options, changes 

in inputs for calculations of energy use 

and equipment manufacturing cost, and 

consideration of space-constrained 

applications. In response to the NOPR 

and NODA comments, DOE adjusted the 

design options it considered to reduce 

impacts on the industry. A discussion of 

these changes can be found in section 

IV.D.3. After applying the change to the 

analyses, the efficiency levels that DOE 

determined to be cost-effective changed 

considerably. These revised TSLs are 

presented in section V.A. 

When compared to the NOPR levels, 

DOE believes the revised levels 

proposed in section V.A will reduce the 

burdens on industry. Table IV.33 below 

presents the portion of model that DOE 

estimates would require redesign at the 

various final rule TSLs. 

TABLE IV.33—PORTION OF INDUSTRY MODELS REQUIRING REDESIGN AT FINAL RULE TSLS

Percent of models failing at each TSL 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 Total 

Batch ................................................................................................................................ 27% 39% 51% 66% 84% 100% 

Continuous ....................................................................................................................... 29 41 55 55 78 100 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 28 40 52 63 82 100 

b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

NRA and NAFEM both commented 

that DOE should consider the impacts of 

the cumulative regulatory burden of 

rulemakings, including energy 

conservation standards for CRE and 

walk-in units as well as EPA 

rulemakings on refrigerants, and 

standards imposed nearly 

simultaneously on equipment 

manufacturers. (NRA, No. 69 at pp. 3– 

4) (NAFEM, No. 82 at pp. 6–7) 

DOE is instructed to consider all 

Federal, product-specific burdens that 

go into effect within 3 years of the 

compliance date of this final rule. The 

list of other standards considered in the 

cumulative regulatory burden analysis 

can be found in section V.B.2.g. DOE 

has included the energy conservation 

standard final rules for walk-in coolers 

and freezers final rule and the 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

final rule. DOE has not included the 

EPA SNAP rulemaking in this analysis. 

Because that rulemaking is in the NOPR 

stage and is not finalized at this time, 

any estimation of the impact or effective 

dates would be speculative. 

c. SNAP and Compliance Date 

Considerations 

AHRI stated that the burden imposed 

by a potential changes in refrigerants is 

significant and will require major 

redesign just to maintain current 

efficiency levels. (AHRI, No. 168 at p. 5) 

AHRI urged DOE to extend the 

compliance period to five years or put 

a hold on the ACIM standards 

rulemaking until the SNAP refrigerants 

are finalized in order to avoid another 

redesign during the compliance period 

of the amended ACIM energy 

conservation standard. (AHRI, No. 70 at 

p. 16) Emerson also supported the idea 

of DOE starting the three-year 

compliance period after EPA finalizes a 

decision on refrigerants, allowing 

manufactures of components and 

equipment to re-design for both energy 

efficiency and low-GWP refrigerants in 

one design cycle. (Emerson, No. 122 at 

p.1) Ice-O-Matic proposed either a five 

year compliance period for the NODA 

TSL 3 or that DOE chose a lower 

standard level. (Ice-O-Matic, No. 121 at 

p. 2) Manitowoc stated that commercial 

ice makers are not within the current 

scope of the SNAP NOPR, however it 

believes that ice makers could be 

affected by a subsequent rulemaking. 

Furthermore, Manitowoc noted that 

even if there is no action on ice makers, 

the component suppliers to the ice 

maker industry (including suppliers of 

compressors, expansion valves, and heat 

exchangers) will be focusing their efforts 

on supporting the transition to SNAP 

refrigerants. Consequently, the 

commercial ice maker industry will be 

affected even if it is not directly covered 

by EPA rules. Manitowoc also 

supported a course of action to reduce 

the risk of multiple redesigns due to the 

refrigerant changes and an amended 

energy conservation standard. 

(Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3) NEEA 

expressed their support for DOE’s 

current refrigerant-neutral position. 

(NEEA, No. 91 at p. 2) 

Since the SNAP rulemaking is in the 

NOPR stage and not finalized at this 

time, any estimation of the impact or 

effectives dates would be speculative, 

however in its August 6, 2014 proposal, 

EPA did not list ACIM as a product that 

would be impacted by forthcoming 

regulations (82 FR 46126). DOE cannot 

speculate on the outcome of a 

rulemaking in progress and can only 

consider in its rulemakings regulations 

that are currently in effect. Therefore, 

DOE has not included possible 

outcomes of a potential EPA SNAP 

rulemaking. 

In response to the request that DOE 

extend the compliance date period for 

automatic commercial ice makers 

beyond the 3 years specified by the 

NOPR, as stated in section IV.A.2, DOE 

has determined that the 3 year 

compliance period is adequate and is 

not extending the compliance date for 

ACIMs. In response to AHRI’s comment 

that DOE should put a hold on the 

ACIM standards rulemaking until the 

SNAP refrigerants are finalized, EPCA 

prescribes that DOE must issue a final 

rule establishing energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers not later than January 1, 2015 

and DOE does not have the authority to 

alter this statutory mandate. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)) 

d. ENERGY STAR 

Manitowoc and Hoshizaki noted that 

the proposed standard bypasses the 

ENERGY STAR level (Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

74; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 1) 

Manitowoc expressed concern that, if 

efficiency standards were raised to the 

level proposed in the NOPR, there 

would be no more room for an ENERGY 

STAR category, which would be 

disruptive to the industry. (Manitowoc, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 

74) 

DOE acknowledges the importance of 

the ENERGY STAR program and of 

understanding its interaction with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

55 Koeller, John, P.E., and Herman Hoffman, P.E. 

A Report on Potential Best Management Practices. 

Rep. The California Urban Water Conservation 

Council, n.d. Web. 19 May 2014. 

energy efficiency standards. However, 

EPCA requires DOE to establish energy 

conservation standards at the maximum 

level that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. The standard 

level considered in this final rule is 

estimated to reduce cumulative source 

energy usage by 8% percent over the 

baseline, for products purchased in 

2018–2047. Comparatively, the maxtech level is estimated to reduce 

cumulative source energy usage by 14% 

percent over the baseline for the same 

time period (refer to section V.B.3 for a 

complete discussion of energy savings). 

As such, the standard level continues to 

leave room for ENERGY STAR rebate 

programs, and therefore new ENERGY 

STAR levels could be reestablished once 

compliance with these standards is 

required. 

e. Request for DOE and EPA 

Collaboration 

Hoshizaki commented that during a 

previous round of refrigerant 

changeovers, it took over five years to 

make the appropriate changes to their 

product line and that it would take even 

longer this time due to the highly 

flammable refrigerant alternatives under 

consideration that would require 

additional redesign work. Hoshizaki 

requested that DOE and EPA work 

together to ensure that manufacturers 

are not unduly burdened with standards 

from both agencies. (Hoshizaki, No. 86 

at p. 6–7) 

DOE recognizes that the combined 

effects of recent or impending 

regulations may have serious 

consequences for some manufacturers, 

groups of manufacturers, or an entire 

industry. As such, DOE conducts an 

analysis of the cumulative regulatory 

burden as part of its rulemakings 

pertaining to equipment efficiency. As 

stated previously, however, DOE cannot 

speculate on the outcome of a 

rulemaking in progress and can only 

consider in its rulemakings regulations 

that are currently in effect. If a 

manufacturer believes that its design is 

subjected to undue hardship by 

regulations, the manufacturer may 

petition DOE’s Office of Hearing and 

Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or 

exemption from the standard pursuant 

to OHA’s authority under section 504 of 

the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 

7194), as implemented at subpart B of 

10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the 

authority to grant such relief on a caseby-case basis if it determines that a 

manufacturer has demonstrated that 

meeting the standard would cause 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens. 

f. Compliance With Refrigerant Changes 

Could Be Difficult 

NAFEM commented that municipal 

and state regulations and codes may 

make it difficult to comply with 

proposed EPA refrigerant regulations in 

some localities and could create 

hardship for manufacturers. (NAFEM, 

No. 82 at p. 7) 

This comment relates to proposed 

EPA refrigerant regulations, and is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

DOE has forwarded the comment to 

EPA’s Stratospheric Protection Division. 

g. Small Manufacturers 

NAFEM notes that the proposed rule 

has a disparate impact on small 

businesses because commercial ice 

makers are largely manufactured by 

small businesses. (NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 

5) AHRI agreed that this rulemaking has 

impacts on small businesses and 

requested DOE account for all small 

ACIM manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 93 at 

p. 12) 

DOE recognizes the potential for this 

rule to affect small businesses. As a 

result, DOE presented a small business 

manufacturer sub-group analysis in the 

NOPR stage and in this final rule notice. 

DOE used industry trade association 

membership directories, public product 

databases, individual company Web 

sites, and other market research tools to 

establish a draft list of covered small 

manufacturers. DOE presented its draft 

list of covered small manufacturers to 

stakeholders and industry 

representatives and asked if they were 

aware of any other small manufacturers 

that should be added to the list during 

manufacturer interviews and at DOE 

public meetings. DOE identified seven 

small manufacturers at the NOPR stage. 

Stakeholders did not provide any 

information in interviews or comments 

that identified additional small 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers. As discussed in section 

VI.B, DOE applied the small business 

size standards published by the SBA to 

determine whether a company is 

considered a small manufacturer. The 

SBA defines a small business for NAICS 

333415 ‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm 

Air Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing’’ as having 750 or fewer 

employees. The 750-employee threshold 

includes all employees in a business’s 

parent company and any other 

subsidiaries. Given the lack of 

additional new information, DOE 

maintains that there are seven small 

business manufacturers of the covered 

product in the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, found in section 

VI.B. 

NAFEM did not provide any data 

supporting the suggestion that the 

majority of domestic ice maker sales are 

from small manufacturers. Based on a 

2008 study by Koeller & Company,55

DOE understands that the ACIM market 

is dominated by four manufacturers 

who produce approximately 90 percent 

of the automatic commercial ice makers 

for sale in the United States. The four 

major manufacturers with the largest 

market share are Manitowoc, Scotsman, 

Hoshizaki, and Ice-O-Matic; none of 

which are consider small business 

manufacturers. The remaining 12 large 

and small manufacturers account for ten 

percent of domestic sales. Thus, DOE 

disagrees with NAFEM’s statement that 

a majority of sales are from small 

manufacturers. 

h. Large Manufacturers 

Scotsman commented that DOE’s 

INPV analysis ignores manufacturers’ 

current financial stability and noted that 

the impacts on large manufacturers 

could be significantly more severe than 

the average. (Scotsman, No. 85 at p.6b) 

The MIA does not forecast the 

financial stability of individual 

manufacturers. The MIA is an industrylevel analysis. Inherent to this analysis 

is that fact that not all industry 

participants will perform equally. 

i. Negative Impact on Market Growth 

Follett and Hoshizaki commented that 

more stringent standards have an 

adverse impact on innovation and 

development of new products. Follett 

commented that DOE’s analysis must 

account for the lost opportunity to 

initiate growth projects that would 

expand the market. (Follett, No. 84 at 

p.10) (Hoshizaki, No.86 at p.4) NRA 

commented that the cost of R&D would 

be passed on to end-users, causing them 

to delay purchasing new equipment and 

thus negatively affecting the ice 

machine industry. (NRA, No. 69 at p. 4) 

The MIA uses the annual shipments 

forecast from the Shipment’s Analysis 

as an input in the GRIM. The Shipments 

Analysis provides the base case 

shipments as well as standards case 

shipments. The analysis uses data from 

AHRI, ENERGY STAR, and U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Current Industrial Reports 

(CIR) to estimate historical shipments 

for automatic commercial ice makers. 

Future shipments are broken down into 

replacement units based on a stock 

accounting model; new sales based on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4711 

projections of new construction activity 

from AEO2014. More detail on this 

methodology can be found in section 

IV.H.1. DOE’s analysis does not 

speculate on additional shipments that 

are the result of ‘‘growth projects.’’ 

Manufacturers did not provide 

estimations of these growth levels or 

justification for such growth levels. 

Thus, DOE was not able to include such 

growth factors in its models. 

j. Negative Impact on Non-U.S. Sales 

Follett added that the additional cost 

of efficient components would impact 

non-U.S. sales. (Follett, No. 84 at p.7) 

Ice-O-Matic commented that they can’t 

afford designs that can only be sold in 

North America and that they will lose 

global busines. (Ice-O-Matic, No. 70 at 

p.308) Scotsman stated it will be a 

challenge to meet DOE efficiency 

thresholds, the EPA SNAP regulations 

and EU regulations with common 

equipment platforms. Scotsman 

continued that the regulations will make 

it difficult for domestic manufacturers 

to compete in the global market, where 

the customers’ primary decision 

criterion is sales price. (Scotsman, 

No.125 at p. 2–3) Scotsman requested 

DOE’s analysis account for the impact 

that regulations will have on 

manufacturers’ ability to compete in a 

global market against cheaper products 

not governed by DOE standards. 

(Scotsman, No.70 at p.43–44) 

The standards in this final rule only 

cover equipment placed into commerce 

in the domestic market, and as such, do 

not restrict manufacturers from selling 

products below the new and amended 

standards in foreign markets. DOE notes 

that manufacturers make products today 

that meet the standard set by the 2005 

energy conservation standard for 

automatic commercial ice makers and 

are able to compete against 

manufacturers with production lines in 

lower cost countries. In their comments, 

manufacturers did not provide any 

information as to which product models 

or which efficiencies are sold into 

international markets. If the models sold 

internationally have efficiencies that 

exceed the amended standard, then 

manufacturers will likely see a 

production cost decrease as sales roll-up 

to the new standard and production 

volumes increase. It is also possible that 

manufacturer production costs could 

increase marginally due to small 

production runs. However, stakeholders 

did not provide enough information for 

DOE to model the price-sensitivity of 

the foreign market. 

k. Employment 

Ice-O-Matic commented that, if the 

market loses net present value, 

companies are not going to accept less 

profit, and so there’s no way they can 

employ the same number of people 

unless they reduce their pay. (Ice-OMatic, No. 70 at p.313) In the NOPR 

public meeting, AHRI, Scotsman, and 

Ice-o-matic noted concerns about DOE 

direct employment estimates being too 

low. (No. 70 at p.320–330) 

DOE analyzes the potential impacts of 

the energy conservation standard on 

direct production labor in section 

V.B.2.d. This analysis estimates the 

production head count, including 

production workers up to the linesupervisor level who are directly 

involved in fabricating and assembling 

a product within an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) facility. It does not 

account for sales, engineering, 

management, and all other workers who 

are not directly producing and 

assembling product. DOE presents an 

upper and lower bound for direct 

employment. DOE does not assert that 

employment will remain steady 

throughout the analysis period. 

In the NOPR, DOE clearly stated the 

assumptions that contributed to its 

estimate of direct production 

employment. These assumptions 

included: Unit sales, labor content per 

unit sold, average hourly wages for 

production workers, and annual hours 

worked by production workers. The 

calculation of production employment 

is discussed in detail in chapter 12 of 

the TSD, section 12.7. In the NOPR and 

NODA comments, DOE did not receive 

any comments on these key production 

employment assumptions. However, 

DOE updated its final rule analysis 

based on a revised engineering analysis, 

shipments analysis, and trial standard 

levels. 

l. Compliance With 12866 and 13563 

NAFEM commented that DOE is in 

violation of Executive Orders 12866 and 

13563. (NAFEM, No. 82 at p.8) DOE has 

fulfilled the obligations required by 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. 

Additional information can be found in 

section VI of this preamble. 

m. Warranty Claims 

Scotsman noted concern that the MIA 

results had not ‘‘accurately accounted 

for warranty increases’’. (Scotsman, 

No.125 at p.3) Specifically, it noted that 

an ECM condenser fan motor would cost 

significantly more than its current 

component. 

DOE did not explicitly factor in 

changes in warranty set-asides or 

payments. In interviews, DOE requested 

manufacturers highlight key concerns 

related to the rulemaking. Warranty 

concerns were not cited as a key issue. 

In order for DOE to account for changes 

in warranty costs, manufacturers would 

need to provide data on current product 

failure rates, causes of failure and 

related repair costs, expected future 

warranty rates, and changes in expected 

repair costs. Insufficient information 

was provided to model a change in 

warranty reserve and warranty pay out. 

Aside from the Scotsman data point on 

the cost of ECM fan motors, no other 

manufacturer supplied hard data related 

to warranty expenses. As a result, DOE 

did not incorporate a change in 

warranty rate in its analysis. 

n. Impact to Suppliers, Distributors, 

Dealers, and Contractors 

AHRI commented that DOE must 

perform analyses to assess the impacts 

of the final rule on component 

suppliers, distributors, dealers, and 

contractors. Policy Analyst also 

suggested that DOE assess whether 

suppliers are affected by the proposed 

standard. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 

10) The MIA assesses the impact of 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers. Analysis of the 

impacts on distributors, dealers, and 

contractors as a result of energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers falls outside the scope of this 

analysis. 

Impacts on component suppliers 

might arise if manufacturers switched to 

more-efficient components, or if there 

was a substantial reduction in sales 

orders following new or amended 

standards. In public comments and in 

confidential interviews, manufacturers 

expressed that given their low 

production volumes, the automatic 

commercial ice maker manufacturing 

industry has little influence over 

component suppliers relative to other 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

industries. (Manitowoc, Preliminary 

Analysis Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

42 at pp. 14–15). It follows that energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers would have little 

impact on component suppliers given 

their marginal contribution to overall 

commercial refrigeration component 

demand. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

from potential energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4712 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

56http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/

inventory/ghg-emissions.html. 

57 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. 2013. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.- 

K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 

Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.). 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Chapter 8. 

58See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

59See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

60On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court 

reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and 

remanded the case for further proceedings 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The 

Supreme Court held in part that EPA’s methodology 

for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated 

in certain states due to their impacts in other 

downwind states was based on a permissible, 

workable, and equitable interpretation of the Clean 

Air Act provision that provides statutory authority 

for CSAPR. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

No 12–1182, slip op. at 32 (U.S. April 29, 2014). 

Because DOE is using emissions factors based on 

AEO2014 for today’s final rule, the analysis 

assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in 

force. The difference between CAIR and CSAPR is 

not relevant for the purpose of DOE’s analysis of 

SO2 emissions. 

61CSAPR also applies to NOX and it would 

supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As 

stated previously, the current analysis assumes that 

CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The 

difference between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to 

DOE’s analysis of NOX emissions is slight. 

makers. In addition, DOE estimates 

emissions impacts in production 

activities (extracting, processing, and 

transporting fuels) that provide the 

energy inputs to power plants. These are 

referred to as ‘‘upstream’’ emissions. 

Together, these emissions account for 

the full-fuel-cycle (FFC). In accordance 

with DOE’s FFC Statement of Policy (76 

FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012)) the FFC analysis 

includes impacts on emissions of CH4

and N2O, both of which are recognized 

as greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

DOE primarily conducted the 

emissions analysis using emissions 

factors for CO2 and most of the other 

gases derived from data in the 

AEO2014. Combustion emissions of CH4

and N2O were estimated using 

emissions intensity factors published by 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), GHG Emissions Factors Hub.56

DOE developed separate emissions 

factors for power sector emissions and 

upstream emissions. The method that 

DOE used to derive emissions factors is 

described in chapter 13 of the final rule 

TSD. 

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated 

emissions reduction in tons and also in 

terms of units of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted 

to CO2eq by multiplying the physical 

units by the gases’ global warming 

potential (GWP) over a 100-year time 

horizon. Based on the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change,57 DOE used GWP values of 28 

for CH4 and 265 for N2O. 

EIA prepares the AEO using NEMS. 

Each annual version of NEMS 

incorporates the projected impacts of 

existing air quality regulations on 

emissions. AEO2014 generally 

represents current legislation and 

environmental regulations, including 

recent government actions, for which 

implementing regulations were 

available as of October 31, 2013. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous states and the District of 

Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern States and DC were also limited 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), 

which created an allowance-based 

trading program that operates along 

with the Title IV program. CAIR was 

remanded to U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit but it remained in 

effect.58 In 2011 EPA issued a 

replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 

2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision 

to vacate CSAPR.59 The court ordered 

EPA to continue administering CAIR. 

The emissions factors used for this final 

rule, which are based on AEO2014, 

assume that CAIR remains a binding 

regulation through 2040.60

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, any excess 

SO2 emissions allowances resulting 

from the lower electricity demand 

caused by the adoption of an efficiency 

standard could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by 

any regulated EGU. In past rulemakings, 

DOE recognized that there was 

uncertainty about the effects of 

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that negligible 

reductions in power sector SO2

emissions would occur as a result of 

standards. 

Beginning in 2016, however, SO2

emissions will fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). In the final MATS rule, 

EPA established a standard for hydrogen 

chloride as a surrogate for acid gas 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and also 

established a standard for SO2 (a nonHAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as 

a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. AEO2014 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants 

must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed by 2016. Both 

technologies are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, and also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, emissions 

will be far below the cap established by 

CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand would be 

needed or used to permit offsetting 

increases in SO2 emissions by any 

regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes 

that efficiency standards will reduce 

SO2 emissions in 2016 and beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern States and the 

District of Columbia.61 Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those States covered by CAIR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions. 

However, standards would be expected 

to reduce NOX emissions in the States 

not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimated NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in this 

final rule for these States. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE 

estimated mercury emissions reduction 

using emissions factors based on 

AEO2014, which incorporates the 

MATS. 

In response to the NOPR, DOE 

received one comment specifically 

about measuring environmental 

benefits. Policy Analyst stated that DOE 

should commit to measuring 

environmental benefits and reductions 

in energy usage as a result of these 

standards. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 

10) DOE has invested a great deal of 

time and effort in quantifying the energy 

reductions and environmental benefits 

of this rule, as described in this section 

and as described in the discussion of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4713 

62National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC (2009). 

NIA (IV.H). Given the dispersed nature 

of automatic commercial ice makers on 

customer premises across the country, 

actual physical measurement of the 

energy savings and environmental 

benefits would be a large and costly 

undertaking which would likely not 

yield useful results. However, DOE is 

committed to working with other 

governmental agencies to continue 

developing tools for quantifying the 

environmental benefits of proceedings 

such as this ACIM rulemaking. The 

discussion that follows of the 

development of the social cost of carbon 

(SCC) is the prime example of these 

efforts. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of the 

standards in this final rule, DOE 

considered the estimated monetary 

benefits from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 and NOX that are expected to result 

from each of the TSLs considered. In 

order to make this calculation similar to 

the calculation of the NPV of consumer 

benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the 

lifetime of equipment shipped in the 

forecast period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

monetary values used for each of these 

emissions and presents the values 

considered in this rulemaking. 

For this final rule, DOE is relying on 

a set of values for the social cost of 

carbon (SCC) that was developed by an 

interagency process. The basis for these 

values is summarized below, and a more 

detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided as an 

appendix to chapter 14 of the final rule 

TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of CO2. A domestic SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages in 

the United States resulting from a unit 

change in CO2 emissions, while a global 

SCC value is meant to reflect the value 

of damages worldwide. 

Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 

12866, agencies must, to the extent 

permitted by law, ‘‘assess both the costs 

and the benefits of the intended 

regulation and, recognizing that some 

costs and benefits are difficult to 

quantify, propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that the benefits of the intended 

regulation justify its costs.’’ The purpose 

of the SCC estimates presented here is 

to allow agencies to incorporate the 

monetized social benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses 

of regulatory actions. The estimates are 

presented with an acknowledgement of 

the many uncertainties involved and 

with a clear understanding that they 

should be updated over time to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed these SCC estimates, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this 

process was to develop a range of SCC 

values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing 

scientific and economic literatures. In 

this way, key uncertainties and model 

differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking 

process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of CO2

emissions, the analyst faces a number of 

serious challenges. A report from the 

National Research Council 62 points out 

that any assessment will suffer from 

uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about (1) future emissions 

of greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of 

past and future emissions on the climate 

system, (3) the impact of changes in 

climate on the physical and biological 

environment, and (4) the translation of 

these environmental impacts into 

economic damages. As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the 

harms associated with climate change 

will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. The agency can estimate the 

benefits from reduced (or costs from 

increased) emissions in any future year 

by multiplying the change in emissions 

in that year by the SCC value 

appropriate for that year. The net 

present value of the benefits can then be 

calculated by multiplying each of these 

future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all 

affected years. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and consider public comments as part of 

the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon 

Values 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing CO2 emissions. 

To ensure consistency in how benefits 

are evaluated across agencies, the 

Administration sought to develop a 

transparent and defensible method, 

specifically designed for the rulemaking 

process, to quantify avoided climate 

change damages from reduced CO2

emissions. The interagency group did 

not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of 

CO2. These interim values represented 

the first sustained interagency effort 

within the U.S. government to develop 

an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. 

The results of this preliminary effort 

were presented in several proposed and 

final rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates. 

Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored 

the technical literature in relevant 

fields. The interagency group relied on 

three integrated assessment models 

commonly used to estimate the SCC: the 

FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These 

models are frequently cited in the peerreviewed literature and were used in the 

last assessment of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Each model 

was given equal weight in the SCC 

values that were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

63Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government, February 2010. www.

whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/foragencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf. 64Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 

for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive 

Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 

2013; revised November 2013. 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/

inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-forregulator-impact-analysis.pdf 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three sets of values are based 

on the average SCC from the three 

integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. 

The fourth set, which represents the 

95th percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, is included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. The values grow in 

real terms over time. Additionally, the 

interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic effects, 

although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV.34 

presents the values in the 2010 

interagency group report,63 which is 

reproduced in appendix 14A of the 

TSD. 

TABLE IV.34—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

(%) 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

The SCC values used for this 

rulemaking were generated using the 

most recent versions of the three 

integrated assessment models that have 

been published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.64 (See appendix 14–B of the 

final rule TSD for further information.) 

Table IV.35 shows the updated sets of 

SCC estimates in 5-year increments from 

2010 to 2050. The full set of annual SCC 

estimates between 2010 and 2050 is 

reported in appendix 14–B of the final 

rule TSD. The central value that 

emerges is the average SCC across 

models at the 3-percent discount rate. 

However, for purposes of capturing the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, the interagency group 

emphasizes the importance of including 

all four sets of SCC values. 

TABLE IV.35—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050 

[2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate 

(%) 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th Percentile 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 11 32 51 89 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 11 37 57 109 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 12 43 64 128 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 14 47 69 143 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 16 52 75 159 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 19 56 80 175 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 21 61 86 191 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 26 71 97 220 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4715 

65www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/

400-series/0411.2-APolicy. 66www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-663. 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned in section 

IV.L.1.a points out that there is tension 

between the goal of producing 

quantified estimates of the economic 

damages from an incremental ton of 

carbon and the limits of existing efforts 

to model these effects. There are a 

number of analytic challenges that are 

being addressed by the research 

community, including research 

programs housed in many of the Federal 

agencies participating in the interagency 

process to estimate the SCC. The 

interagency group intends to 

periodically review and reconsider 

those estimates to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report 

adjusted to 2013$ using the Gross 

Domestic Product price deflator. For 

each of the four cases of SCC values, the 

values for emissions in 2015 were $12.0, 

$40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton of 

CO2 avoided. DOE derived values after 

2050 using the relevant growth rates for 

the 2040–2050 period in the interagency 

update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. To calculate a present value 

of the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SCC values in each case. 

In responding to the NOPR, many 

commenters questioned why DOE 

quantified the emissions. Commenters 

also questioned the scientific and 

economic basis of the SCC values. 

Scotsman stated they did not 

understand the logic of predicting 

emissions reductions associated with a 

product with such a limited population 

relative to national average energy 

consumption. (Scotsman, No. 95 at page 

7) As stated earlier in the SCC 

discussion, DOE quantifies emissions 

reductions as one of the societal impacts 

of all standards in accordance with 

section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866. 

A number of stakeholders stated that 

DOE should not use SCC values to 

establish monetary figures for emissions 

reductions until the SCC undergoes a 

more rigorous notice, review, and 

comment process. (AHRI, No. 93 at pp. 

13–14; The Associations, No. 77 at p. 4) 

The Cato Institute commented that SCC 

should be barred from use until its 

deficiencies are rectified. (Cato Institute, 

No. 74 at p. 1) Similarly, IER stated that 

SCC should no longer be used in 

Federal regulatory analysis and 

rulemakings. (IER, No. 83 at p. 2) In 

contrast, IPI et al. affirmed that current 

SCC values are sufficiently robust and 

accurate for continued use in regulatory 

analyses. (IPI, No. 78 at p. 1) 

In conducting the interagency process 

that developed the SCC values, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. Key uncertainties and 

model differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates. These uncertainties and 

model differences are discussed in the 

interagency working group’s reports, 

which are reproduced in appendix 14A 

and 14B of the TSD, as are the major 

assumptions. The 2010 SCC values have 

been used in a number of Federal 

rulemakings upon which the public had 

opportunity to comment. In November 

2013, the OMB announced a new 

opportunity for public comment on the 

TSD underlying the revised SCC 

estimates. See 78 FR 70586 (Nov. 26, 

2013). OMB is currently reviewing 

comments and considering whether 

further revisions to the 2013 SCC 

estimates are warranted. DOE stands 

ready to work with OMB and the other 

members of the interagency working 

group on further review and revision of 

the SCC estimates as appropriate. 

IER commented that the SCC is 

inappropriate for use in federal 

rulemakings because it is based on 

subjective modeling decisions rather 

than objective observations and because 

it violates OMB guidelines for accuracy, 

reliability, and freedom from bias. (IER, 

No. 83 at p. 2) The General Accounting 

Office (GAO) was asked to review the 

Interagency Working Group’s (IWG) 

development of SCC estimates,65 and 

noted that OMB and EPA participants 

reported that the IWG documented all 

major issues consistent with Federal 

standards for internal control. The GAO 

also found, according to its document 

review and interviews, that the IWG’s 

development process followed three 

principles: (1) It used consensus-based 

decision making; (2) it relied on existing 

academic literature and models; and (3) 

it took steps to disclose limitations and 

incorporate new information. Further, 

DOE has sought to ensure that the data 

and research used to support its policy 

decisions—including the SCC values— 

are of high scientific and technical 

quality and objectivity, as called for by 

the Secretarial Policy Statement on 

Scientific Integrity.66 See section VI.L 

for DOE’s evaluation of this final rule 

and supporting analyses under the DOE 

and OMB information quality 

guidelines. 

The Cato Institute stated that the 

determination of the SCC is discordant 

with the best scientific literature on the 

equilibrium climate sensitivity and the 

fertilization effect of CO2—two critically 

important parameters for establishing 

the net externality of CO2 emissions. 

(Cato Institute, No. 74 at pp. 1, 12–15) 

The revised estimates that were issued 

in November 2013 are based on the best 

available scientific information on the 

impacts of climate change. The issue of 

equilibrium climate sensitivity is 

addressed in section 14A.4 of appendix 

14A in the TSD. The EPA, in 

collaboration with other Federal 

agencies, continues to investigate 

potential improvements to the way in 

which economic damages associated 

with changes in CO2 emissions are 

quantified. 

AHRI commented that the GHG 

emissions reductions benefits may be 

overestimated because the DOE’s 

analysis does not take into 

consideration EPA’s planned regulation 

of GHG emissions from power plants, 

which would affect the estimated 

carbon emissions. AHRI suggested DOE 

conduct additional research on the 

impact of EPA’s regulations on SCC 

values. (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 14) As noted 

in section IV.L.1, DOE participates in 

the IWG process. DOE believes that if 

necessary and appropriate the IWG will 

perform research as suggested by AHRI, 

but notes that results from any such 

research will not be timely for inclusion 

in this rulemaking. With respect to 

AHRI’s comment about accounting for 

EPA’s planned regulations, DOE cannot 

account for regulations that are not 

currently in effect because whether such 

regulations will be adopted and their 

final form are matters of speculation at 

this time. 

The Cato Institute commented that the 

IWG appears to violate the directive in 

OMB Circular A–4, which states, ‘‘Your 

analysis should focus on benefits and 

costs that accrue to citizens and 

residents of the United States. Where 

you choose to evaluate a regulation that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4716 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

67U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report 

to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 

Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, 

Local, and Tribal Entities, Washington, DC. 

Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/

files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_

final_report.pdf. 

68For more information on NEMS, refer to the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration documentation. A useful summary 

is National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2003, DOE/EIA–0581(2003), March, 2003. 

69 DOE/EIA approves use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ to 

describe only an official version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

this analysis entails some minor code modifications 

and the model is run under various policy scenarios 

that are variations on DOE/EIA assumptions, DOE 

refers to it by the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ (‘‘BT’’ is DOE’s 

Building Technologies Program, under whose aegis 

this work has been performed). 

is likely to have effects beyond the 

borders of the United States, these 

effects should be reported separately.’’ 

The Cato Institute stated that instead of 

focusing on domestic benefits and 

separately reporting any international 

effects, the IWG only reports the global 

costs and makes no determination of the 

domestic costs. (Cato Institute, No. 74 at 

pp. 2–3) IER expressed similar concerns 

about the IWG’s use of a global 

perspective in reporting SCC estimates. 

(IER, No. 83 at pp. 16–17) AHRI 

commented that either domestic or 

global costs and benefits should be 

considered, but not both. (AHRI, No. 93 

at p. 14) 

Although the relevant analyses 

address both domestic and global 

impacts, the interagency group has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

focus on a global measure of SCC 

because of the distinctive nature of the 

climate change problem, which is 

highly unusual in at least two respects. 

First, it involves a global externality: 

Emissions of most greenhouse gases 

contribute to damages around the world 

when they are emitted in the United 

States. Second, climate change presents 

a problem that the United States alone 

cannot solve. The issue of global versus 

domestic measures of the SCC is further 

discussed in appendix 14A of the TSD. 

AHRI stated that the costs of the 

proposed rule are calculated over the 

course of a 30-year period, while 

avoided SCC benefit is calculated over 

a 300-year period. AHRI further 

commented that longer-term (i.e., 30– 

300 years) impacts of regulations on 

businesses are unknown, and should be 

studied. (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 14) For the 

analysis of national impacts of 

standards, DOE considers the lifetime 

impacts of equipment shipped in a 30- 

year period, with energy and cost 

savings impacts aggregated until all of 

the equipment shipped in the 30-year 

period is retired. With respect to the 

valuation of CO2 emissions reductions, 

the SCC estimates developed by the 

IWG are meant to represent the full 

discounted value (using an appropriate 

range of discount rates) of emissions 

reductions occurring in a given year. 

Thus, DOE multiplies the SCC values 

for achieving the emissions reductions 

in each year of the analysis by the 

carbon reductions estimated for each of 

those same years. Neither the costs nor 

the benefits of emissions reductions 

outside the analytic time frame are 

included in the analysis. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

As noted in section IV.K, DOE has 

taken into account how new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce NOX emissions in those 

22 States not affected by emissions caps. 

DOE estimated the monetized value of 

NOX emissions reductions resulting 

from each of the TSLs considered for 

this final rule based on estimates found 

in the relevant scientific literature. 

Estimates of monetary value for 

reducing NOX from stationary sources 

range from $476 to $4,893 per ton 

(2013$).67 DOE calculated monetary 

benefits using a medium value for NOX

emissions of $2,684 per short ton (in 

2013$), and real discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. It has not 

included such monetization in the 

current analysis. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several effects on the power generation 

industry that would result from the 

adoption of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In the utility 

impact analysis, DOE analyzes the 

changes in electric installed capacity 

and generation that result for each TSL. 

The utility impact analysis uses a 

variant of NEMS,68 which is a public 

domain, multi-sectored, partial 

equilibrium model of the U.S. energy 

sector. DOE uses a variant of this model, 

referred to as NEMS–BT,69 to account 

for selected utility impacts of new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE’s analysis consists of a 

comparison between model results for 

the most recent AEO Reference Case and 

for cases in which energy use is 

decremented to reflect the impact of 

potential standards. The energy savings 

inputs associated with each TSL come 

from the NIA. Chapter 15 of the final 

rule TSD describes the utility impact 

analysis. 

DOE received one comment about the 

utility impact analysis. Policy Analyst 

commented that DOE should commit to 

measuring the effects of these energy 

savings on the security, reliability, and 

costs of maintaining the nation’s energy 

system. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 10) 

As discussed in Chapter 15 of the TSD, 

DOE does quantify the effects of the 

energy savings on the nation’s energy 

system. Given the widely dispersed 

nature of automatic commercial ice 

makers on customer premises across the 

country, physically measuring the 

impacts would be time-consuming and 

costly and would likely not result in 

useful measurements of the effects. DOE 

has over the course of many energy 

conservation standards rulemakings 

developed the tools and processes used 

in this rulemaking to estimate the 

impacts on the electric utility system, 

and those impacts are discussed in 

Chapter 15 of the TSD. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

Employment impacts from new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

include direct and indirect impacts. 

Direct employment impacts, which are 

addressed in the MIA, are any changes 

in the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the equipment subject 

to standards. Indirect employment 

impacts, which are assessed as part of 

the employment impact analysis, are 

changes in national employment that 

occur due to the shift in expenditures 

and capital investment caused by the 

purchase and operation of moreefficient equipment. Indirect 

employment impacts from standards 

consist of the jobs created or eliminated 

in the national economy due to (1) 

reduced spending by end users on 

energy; (2) reduced spending on new 

energy supply by the utility industry; (3) 

increased customer spending on the 

purchase of new equipment; and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly 

publishes its estimates of the number of 

jobs per million dollars of economic 

activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4717 

70See U.S. Department of Commerce—Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (RIMS II). 1992. 

71Scott, M.J., O.V. Livingston, P.J. Balducci, J.M. 

Roop, and R.W. Schultz. ImSET 3.1: Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies. 2009. Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA. 

Report No. PNNL–18412. www.pnl.gov/main/

publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL18412.pdf. 

economy.70 There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital-intensive and less 

labor-intensive than other sectors. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing customer utility bills. 

Because reduced customer expenditures 

for energy likely lead to increased 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy, the general effect of efficiency 

standards is to shift economic activity 

from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., 

the utility sector) to more laborintensive sectors (e.g., the retail and 

service sectors). Thus, based on the BLS 

data alone, DOE believes net national 

employment may increase because of 

shifts in economic activity resulting 

from amended energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers. 

For the standard levels considered in 

this final rule, DOE estimated indirect 

national employment impacts using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET).71

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among the 

187 sectors. ImSET’s national economic 

I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. 

benchmark table, specially aggregated to 

the 187 sectors most relevant to 

industrial, commercial, and residential 

building energy use. DOE notes that 

ImSET is not a general equilibrium 

forecasting model and understands the 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may overestimate actual job impacts 

over the long run. For the final rule, 

DOE used ImSET only to estimate shortterm (through 2022) employment 

impacts. 

DOE received no comments 

specifically on the indirect employment 

impacts. Comments received were 

related to manufacturing employment 

impacts, and DOE reiterates that the 

indirect employment impacts estimated 

with ImSET for the entire economy 

differ from the direct employment 

impacts in the ACIM manufacturing 

sector estimated using the GRIM in the 

MIA, as described at the beginning of 

this section. The methodologies used 

and the sectors analyzed in the ImSET 

and GRIM models are different. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis and its results, see 

chapter 16 of the TSD and section 

V.B.3.d of this preamble. 

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

DOE prepared a regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) for this rulemaking, 

which is described in chapter 17 of the 

final rule TSD. The RIA is subject to 

review by the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB. 

The RIA consists of (1) a statement of 

the problem addressed by this 

regulation and the mandate for 

government action; (2) a description and 

analysis of policy alternatives to this 

regulation; (3) a qualitative review of the 

potential impacts of the alternatives; 

and (4) the national economic impacts 

of the proposed standard. 

The RIA assesses the effects of 

feasible policy alternatives to amended 

automatic commercial ice makers 

standards and provides a comparison of 

the impacts of the alternatives. DOE 

evaluated the alternatives in terms of 

their ability to achieve significant 

energy savings at reasonable cost and 

compared them to the effectiveness of 

the proposed rule. 

DOE identified the following major 

policy alternatives for achieving 

increased automatic commercial ice 

makers efficiency: 

• No new regulatory action 

• Commercial customer tax credits 

• Commercial customer rebates 

• Voluntary energy efficiency targets 

• Bulk government purchases 

• Early replacement. 

DOE qualitatively evaluated each 

alternative’s ability to achieve 

significant energy savings at reasonable 

cost and compared it to the effectiveness 

of the proposed rule. See chapter 17 of 

the final rule TSD for further details. 

In response to the NOPR, DOE 

received comments from NAFEM stating 

that NAFEM commented that DOE 

failed to consider the positive role of 

ENERGY STAR in the marketplace, that 

the Federal Energy Management 

Program (FEMP) already encourages 

manufacturers to innovate and create 

energy savings, the effects of local and 

state initiatives, and the effects of 

voluntary building standards that 

require high efficiency products in the 

marketplace. (NAFEM, No. 82 at pp. 8– 

9) 

In response to the NAFEM comment, 

DOE notes first that FEMP and other 

voluntary programs tend to use 

ENERGY STAR as the efficiency target 

levels for equipment classes covered by 

ENERGY STAR. DOE recognizes that the 

market has achieved a roughly 60- 

percent success rate in reaching the 

ENERGY STAR criteria for the time that 

ENERGY STAR has covered automatic 

commercial ice makers. The marketdriven accomplishments are reflected in 

the distribution of shipments by 

efficiency level for the base conditions, 

and very much influence the results of 

the analysis. The selected TSL 3 yields 

a shipments-weighted average efficiency 

improvement of approximately 8 

percent. If all customers purchased 

efficiency level 1 equipment (i.e., 

baseline equipment), the shipmentsweighted average efficiency 

improvement would be over 18 percent. 

The difference is attributable to the 

combination of ENERGY STAR, FEMP, 

utility incentive programs, incentive 

programs operated by governmental 

entities and others, and customer 

economic decision making. 

In deciding what efficiency targets to 

model in the RIA, DOE noted that 

modeling the new ENERGY STAR 

criteria would show modest energy 

savings and NPV results because, as 

noted above, the baseline already 

reflects the market-driven 

accomplishments. Further, ENERGY 

STAR changes their criteria 

periodically. The first set of automatic 

commercial ice maker criteria was in 

effect for approximately 5 years, and the 

second set became effective February 1, 

2013. If the ENERGY STAR criteria are 

updated again after a 5-year period, the 

criteria will be revised by the 

compliance date of this rule. Because 

future ENERGY STAR criteria are 

unknown, DOE performed the 

regulatory impact analysis using TSL 3 

efficiency levels matched with the 60- 

percent ENERGY STAR success rate. 

DOE believes that in performing the 

analysis in this fashion, DOE was 

acknowledging the ability of the 

ENERGY STAR program to reach 

customers and impact their decisionmaking. 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

1. Trial Standard Level Formulation 

Process and Criteria 

DOE selected between two and seven 

efficiency levels for all equipment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4718 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

72ENERGY STAR Version 2.0 for Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers became effective on 

February 1, 2013. 

classes for analysis. For all equipment 

classes, the first efficiency level is the 

baseline efficiency level. Based on the 

results of the NIA and other analyses, 

DOE selected five TSLs above the 

baseline level for each equipment class 

for the NOPR stage of this rulemaking. 

Table V.1 shows the mapping between 

TSLs and efficiency levels. 

TSL 5 was selected as the max-tech 

level for all equipment classes. At this 

level, DOE’s analysis considered that 

equipment would require use of design 

options that generally are not used by 

ice makers, but that are currently 

commercially available; specifically 

drain water heat exchangers for batch 

ice makers and ECM motors for all ice 

maker classes. The range of energy use 

reduction at the max-tech level varies 

widely with the equipment class, from 

7% for IMH–W–Large–B to 33% for 

SCU–A–Small–B. 

TSL 4 was chosen as an intermediate 

level between the max-tech level and 

the maximum customer NPV level, 

subject to the requirement that the TSL 

4 NPV must be positive. ‘‘Customer 

NPV’’ is the NPV of future savings 

obtained from the NIA. It provides a 

measure of the benefits only to the 

customers of the automatic commercial 

ice makers and does not account for the 

net benefits to the nation. The net 

benefits to the nation also include 

monetized values of emissions 

reductions in addition to the customer 

NPV. Where a sufficient number of 

efficiency levels allow it, TSL 4 is set at 

least one level below max-tech and one 

level above the efficiency level with the 

highest NPV. In one case, the TSL 4 

efficiency level is the maximum NPV 

level because the next higher level had 

a negative NPV. In cases where the 

maximum NPV efficiency level is the 

penultimate efficiency level and the 

max-tech level showed a positive NPV, 

the TSL 4 efficiency level is also the 

max-tech level. 

TSL 3 was chosen to represent the 

group of efficiency levels with the 

highest customer NPV at a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

TSL 2 was selected to provide 

intermediate efficiency levels between 

the TSLs 1 and 3. Note that with the 

number of efficiency levels available for 

each equipment class, there is often 

overlap between TSL levels. Thus, TSL 

2 includes efficiency levels that overlap 

with both TSLs 1 and 3. The intent of 

TSL 2 is to provide an intermediate 

level that examines in efficiency options 

between TSLs 1 and 3. 

TSL 1 was set equal to efficiency level 

2. In the NOPR analysis, DOE set 

efficiency level 2 to be equivalent to 

ENERGY STAR in effect at the time DOE 

started the analysis for products rated 

by ENERGY STAR and to an equivalent 

efficiency improvement for other 

equipment classes. However, the 

ENERGY STAR level for automatic 

commercial ice makers has since been 

revised.72 Therefore, in the NODA and 

final rule analysis DOE has instead used 

a more consistent 10-percent level for 

efficiency level 2, representing energy 

use 10 percent lower than the baseline 

energy use. This level reflects but is not 

fully consistent with the former 

ENERGY STAR level for those classes 

covered by ENERGY STAR. The new 

ENERGY STAR level, defined for all aircooled equipment classes (i.s. IMH–A, 

RCU, and SCU–A classes for both batch 

and continuous ice makers) does not 

consistently align with any of the TSLs 

selected by DOE. For example, for IMH– 

A batch classes, the current ENERGY 

STAR level corresponds roughly to TSL 

1 at 300 lb ice/24 hours, TSL 3 at 800 

lb ice/24 hours, and is more stringent 

than TSL 5 at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours. 

Graphical comparison of the TSLs, 

ENERGY STAR, and existing products is 

providing in Chapter 3 of the TSL. 

TABLE V.1—MAPPING BETWEEN TSLS AND EFFICIENCY LEVELS * 

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 5. 

IMH–W–Med–B ................................... Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4. 

IMH–W–Large–B † 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 ..................... Level 1 ................. Level 1 ................. Level 1 ................. Level 1 ................. Level 2. 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ..................... Level 1 ................. Level 1 ................. Level 1 ................. Level 1 ................. Level 2. 

IMH–A–Small–B .................................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 3A ............... Level 3A ............... Level 6. 

IMH–A–Large–B † 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ........................ Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 3A ............... Level 4 ................. Level 5. 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ........................ Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 3. 

RCU–Large–B† 

RCU–Large–B1 ............................ Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4. 

RCU–Large–B2 ............................ Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3. 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................ Level 2 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 6 ................. Level 6. 

SCU–A–Small–B ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 6 ................. Level 7. 

SCU–A–Large–B ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 5 ................. Level 6 ................. Level 6. 

IMH–A–Small–C .................................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 6. 

IMH–A–Large–C ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 5. 

RCU–Small–C ..................................... Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 6. 

SCU–A–Small–C ................................. Level 2 ................. Level 3 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 4 ................. Level 6. 

* For three large equipment classes—IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B—because the harvest capacity range is so wide,

DOE analyzed two typical models to model the low and the high portions of the applicable range with greater accuracy. The smaller of the two is 

noted as B1 and the larger as B2. 

† DOE analyzed impacts for the B1 and B2 typical units and aggregated impacts to the equipment class level. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4719 

Table V.2 illustrates the efficiency 

improvements incorporated in all TSLs. 

TABLE V.2—PERCENTAGE EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT FROM BASELINE BY TSL * 

Equipment class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B .................................................................. 10.0% 10.0% 15.0% 15.0% 23.9% 

IMH–W–Med–B .................................................................... 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 18.1 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ........................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ........................................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 

IMH–A–Small–B ................................................................... 10.0 15.0 18.1 18.1 25.5 

IMH–A–Large–B ................................................................... 10.0 14.2 15.2 18.7 21.6 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ......................................................... 10.0 15.0 15.8 20.0 23.4 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ......................................................... 10.0 10.0 11.8 11.8 11.8 

RCU–Large–B ...................................................................... 10.0 10.0 10.0 14.7 17.1 

RCU–Large–B1 ............................................................. 10.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 17.3 

RCU–Large–B2 ............................................................. 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 13.9 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................................................. 10.0 20.0 25.0 29.8 29.8 

SCU–A–Small–B .................................................................. 10.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 32.7 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................................................. 10.0 20.0 25.0 29.1 29.1 

IMH–A–Small–C ................................................................... 10.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 25.7 

IMH–A–Large–C .................................................................. 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 23.3 

RCU–Small–C ...................................................................... 10.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 26.6 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................................................. 10.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 26.6 

* Percentage improvements for IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B are a weighted average of the B1 and B2 units, using

weights provided in TSD chapter 7. 

Table V.3 illustrates the design 

options associated with each TSL level, 

for each analyzed product class. The 

design options are discussed in section 

IV.D.3 of this final rule and in chapter 

5 of the TSD. 

TABLE V.3—DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ANALYZED PRODUCTS CLASSES AT EACH TSL 

Equipment class Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Design Options for Each TSL (options are cumulative—TSL 5 includes all preceding options) 

IMH–W–Small–B ................. No BW Fill .........

SPM PM ............

+ Comp EER ....

+ Cond ..............

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

+ Cond .............. Same EL as 

TSL 3.

BW Fill 

+ Evap 

ECM PM 

DWHX. 

IMH–W–Small–B (22 inch 

wide).

No BW Fill .........

SPM PM ............

+ Comp EER ....

+ Cond ..............

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

+ Cond ..............

BW Fill ..............

Same EL as 

TSL 3.

N/A for 22-inch. 

IMH–W–Med–B ................... BW Fill ..............

SPM PM ............

+ Comp EER ....

ECM PM ...........

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

+ Cond .............. DWHX. 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ............... BW Fill ..............

SPM PM ............

Same EL as 

Baseline.

Same EL as 

Baseline.

Same EL as 

Baseline.

Same EL as 

Baseline.

+ Comp EER 

+ Cond 

ECM PM 

DWHX. 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ............... BW Fill ..............

SPM PM ............

Same EL as 

Baseline.

Same EL as 

Baseline.

Same EL as 

Baseline.

Same EL as 

Baseline.

+ Comp EER 

+ Cond 

ECM PM 

DWHX. 

IMH–A–Small–B .................. BW Fill ..............

SPM PM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Comp EER ....

+ Cond ..............

+ Evap ..............

ECM FM ............

+ Evap .............. + Evap .............. Same EL as 

TSL 3.

+ Evap 

ECM PM 

DWHX. 

IMH–A–Small–B (22 inch 

wide).

BW Fill ..............

SPM PM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Comp EER ....

+ Cond ..............

+ Evap ..............

ECM FM ............

+ Evap .............. ECM PM ...........

DWHX ...............

Same EL as 

TSL 3.

N/A for 22-inch. 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................ No BW Fill .........

SPM PM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Comp EER ....

PSC FM ............

ECM FM ............

BW Fill ..............

BW Fill .............. BW Fill ..............

ECM PM ...........

+ Cond ..............

DWHX. 

IMH–A–Large–B1 (22 inch 

wide).

No BW Fill .........

SPM PM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Comp EER ....

ECM FM ............

BW Fill ..............

BW Fill ..............

ECM PM ...........

DWHX ...............

DWHX ............... N/A for 22-inch .. N/A for 22-inch. 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................ BW Fill ..............

SPM PM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Comp EER ....

ECM FM ............

ECM PM ...........

+ Cond ..............

DWHX ...............

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

DWHX ............... Same EL as 

TSL 3.

Same EL as 

TSL 3. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.3—DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ANALYZED PRODUCTS CLASSES AT EACH TSL—Continued 

Equipment class Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

RCU–Large–B1 ................... BW Fill ..............

SPM PM ............

PSC FM ............

+ Cond ..............

+ Comp EER ....

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

ECM FM ............

ECM PM ...........

+ Cond ..............

DWHX ...............

DWHX. 

RCU–Large–B2 ................... BW Fill ..............

SPM PM ............

PSC FM ............

+ Comp EER ....

ECM FM ............

+ Cond ..............

ECM PM ...........

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

Same EL as 

TSL 1.

DWHX. 

SCU–W–Large–B ................ No BW Fill .........

SPM PM ............

BW Fill ..............

+ Evap ..............

+Evap ................

+ Cond ..............

+ Cond .............. + Cond .............. DWHX. 

SCU–A–Small–B ................. No BW Fill .........

SPM PM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Cond ..............

+ Comp .............

EER ...................

+ Comp EER .... PSC FM ............

BW Fill ..............

BW Fill ..............

ECM PM ...........

ECM FM ............

ECM FM 

DWHX. 

SCU–A–Large–B ................. No BW Fill .........

SPM PM ............

SPM FM ............

+Cond ...............

+ Comp EER ....

+ Comp EER ....

BW Fill ..............

BW Fill ..............

ECM FM ............

ECM PM ...........

DWHX ...............

Same EL as 

TSL 4. 

RCU–Small–C ..................... PSC AM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Comp EER ....

PSC FM ............

ECM FM ............ ECM FM ............

+ Cond ..............

Same EL as 

TSL3.

+ Cond 

ECM AM. 

IMH–A–Small–C .................. PSC AM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Comp EER ....

+ Cond ..............

+ Cond ..............

ECM FM ............

ECM FM ............

+ Cond ..............

Same EL as 

TSL 3.

ECM AM. 

IMH–A–Large–C .................. PSC AM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Comp EER .... Same EL as 

TSL 1.

+ Comp EER ....

+ Cond ..............

Same EL as 

TSL 3.

+ Cond 

ECM FM 

ECM AM. 

SCU–A–Small–C ................. PSC AM ............

SPM FM ............

+ Cond ..............

+ Comp EER ....

+ Comp EER .... + Comp EER ....

ECM FM ............

Same EL as 

TSL 3.

ECM FM 

ECM AM. 

EL = Efficiency Level 

SPM = Shaded Pole Motor 

PSC = Permanent Split Capacitor Motor 

ECM = Electronically Commutated Motor 

FM = Fan Motor (Air-Cooled Units) 

AM = Auger Motor (Continuous Units) 

BW Fill = Batch Water Fill Option Included 

+ Cond = Increase in Condenser Size 

+ Evap = Increase in Evaporator Size 

+ Comp EER = Increase in Compressor EER 

DWHX = Addition of Drain Water Heat Exchanger 

Chapter 5 of the TSD contains full 

descriptions of the design options, 

DOE’s analyses for the equipment size 

increase associated with the design 

options selected, and DOE’s analyses of 

the efficiency gains for each design 

option considered. 

2. Trial Standard Level Equations 

Table V.4 and Table V.5 translate the 

TSLs into potential standards. In Table 

V.4, the TSLs are translated into energy 

consumption standards for the batch 

classes, while Table V.5 provides the 

potential energy consumption standards 

for the continuous classes. Note that the 

size nomenclature for the classes (Small, 

Medium, Large, and Extended) in many 

cases designate different capacity ranges 

than the current class sizes. However, 

the discussion throughout this preamble 

is based primarily on the current class 

capacity ranges—the alternative 

designation is made in Table V.4 and 

Table V.5 for future use when the new 

energy conservation standards take 

effect. 

TABLE V.4—EQUATIONS REPRESENTING THE TSLS FOR BATCH EQUIPMENT CLASSES

[Maximum energy use in kWh/100 lb ice] 

Batch equipment class 

Capacity 

range 

lb ice/24 hours 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................... <300 7.19–0.0055H 7.19–0.0055H 6.88–0.0055H 6.88–0.0055H 6.32–0.0055H 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................ ≥300 and 

<850 

6.28– 

0.00247H 

6.28– 

0.00247H 

5.8–0.00191H 5.9–0.00224H 5.17– 

0.00165H 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................... ≥850 and 

<1500 

4.42– 

0.00028H 

4.42– 

0.00028H 

4.0 4.0 3.86– 

0.00012H 

IMH–W–Extended–B ................................ ≥1,500 and 

<2,600 

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.62 + 

0.00004H 

≥2,600 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.72 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................... <300 10.09– 

0.0106H 

10.05– 

0.01173H 

10–0.01233H 10–0.01233H 9.38– 

0.01233H 

IMH–A–Medium–B ................................... ≥300 and 

<800 

7.81–0.003H 7.38– 

0.00284H 

7.05–0.0025H 7.19– 

0.00298H 

6.31–0.0021H 

IMH–A–Large–B ....................................... ≥800 and 

<1,500 

6.21– 

0.00099H 

5.56– 

0.00056H 

5.55– 

0.00063H 

5.04– 

0.00029H 

4.65– 

0.00003H 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4721 

TABLE V.4—EQUATIONS REPRESENTING THE TSLS FOR BATCH EQUIPMENT CLASSES—Continued 

[Maximum energy use in kWh/100 lb ice] 

Batch equipment class 

Capacity 

range 

lb ice/24 hours 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–A–Extended–B ................................. >1,500 4.73 4.72 4.61 4.61 4.61 

RCU–NRC–Small–B ................................ <988 * 7.97– 

0.00342H 

7.97– 

0.00342H 

7.97– 

0.00342H 

7.52– 

0.00323H 

7.35– 

0.00312H 

RCU–NRC–Large–B ................................ ≥988 * and 

<1,500 

4.59 4.59 4.59 4.34 4.23 

RCU–NRC–Extended–B .......................... ≥1,500 and 

<2,400 

4.59 4.59 4.59 3.92 + 

0.00028H 

3.96 + 

0.00018H 

≥2,400 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.39 

RCU–RC–Small–B ................................... <930 ** 7.97– 

0.00342H 

7.97– 

0.00342H 

7.97– 

0.00342H 

7.52– 

0.00323H 

7.35– 

0.00312H 

RCU–RC–Large–B ................................... ≥930 ** and 

<1,500 

4.79 4.79 4.79 4.54 4.43 

RCU–RC–Extended–B ............................. ≥1,500 and < 

2,400 

4.79 4.79 4.79 4.12 + 

0.00028H 

4.16 + 

0.00018H 

≥2,400 4.79 4.79 4.79 4.79 4.59 

SCU–W–Small–B ..................................... <200 10.64–0.019H 9.88–0.019H 9.5–0.019H 9.14–0.019H 9.14–0.019H 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................... ≥200 6.84 6.08 5.7 5.34 5.34 

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................... <110 16.72– 

0.0469H 

15.43– 

0.0469H 

14.79– 

0.0469H 

14.15– 

0.0469H 

13.76– 

0.0469H 

SCU–A–Large–B ...................................... ≥110 and 

<200 

14.91– 

0.03044H 

13.24–0.027H 12.42– 

0.02533H 

11.47– 

0.02256H 

10.6–0.02 

SCU–A–Extended–B ................................ ≥200 8.82 7.84 7.35 6.96 6.96 

* 985 for TSL4, 1,000 for TSL5 

** 923 for TSL4, 936 for TSL5 

TABLE V.5—EQUATIONS REPRESENTING THE TSLS FOR CONTINUOUS EQUIPMENT CLASSES

[Maximum energy use in kWh/100 lb ice] 

Continuous equipment class 

Capacity 

range 

lb ice/24 hours 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–C ...................................... <801 7.29–0.003H 6.89– 

0.00283H 

6.48– 

0.00267H 

6.48– 

0.00267H 

5.75– 

0.00237H 

IMH–W–Large–C ..................................... ≥801 4.59 4.59 4.34 4.34 3.93 

IMH–A–Small–C ....................................... <310 10.1– 

0.00629H 

9.64– 

0.00629H 

9.19– 

0.00629H 

9.19– 

0.00629H 

8.38– 

0.00629H 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................... ≥310 and 

<820 

9.49– 

0.00433H 

8.75– 

0.00343H 

8.23–0.0032H 8.23–0.0032H 7.25– 

0.00265H 

IMH–A–Extended–C ................................ ≥820 5.94 5.94 5.61 5.61 5.08 

RCU–NRC–Small–C ................................ <800 9.85– 

0.00519H 

9.78–0.0055H 9.7–0.0058H 9.7–0.0058H 9.26–0.0058H 

RCU–NRC–Large–C ................................ ≥800 5.7 5.38 5.06 5.06 4.62 

RCU–RC–Small–C ................................... <800 10.05– 

0.00519H 

9.98–0.0055H 9.9–0.0058H 9.9–0.0058H 9.46–0.0058H 

RCU–RC–Large–C .................................. ≥800 5.9 5.58 5.26 5.26 4.82 

SCU–W–Small–C ..................................... <900 8.55–0.0034H 8.08 0.0032H 7.6–0.00302H 7.6–0.00302H 6.84– 

0.00272H 

SCU–W–Large–C .................................... ≥900 5.49 5.19 4.88 4.88 4.39 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................... <200 15.26–0.03 14.73–0.03H 14.22–0.03H 14.22–0.03H 13.4–0.03H 

SCU–A–Large–C ..................................... ≥200 and 700 10.66– 

0.00702H 

10.06– 

0.00663H 

9.47– 

0.00624H 

9.47– 

0.00624H 

8.52– 

0.00562H 

SCU–A–Extended–C ............................... ≥700 5.75 5.42 5.1 5.1 4.59 

In developing TSLs, DOE analyzed 

representative units for each equipment 

class group, defined for the purposes of 

this discussion by the ‘‘Type of Ice 

Maker,’’ ‘‘Equipment Type,’’ and ‘‘Type 

of Condenser Cooling’’ (see Table IV.2— 

within each class group, further 

segregation into equipment classes 

involves only specification of harvest 

capacity rate). DOE first established a 

percentage reduction in energy use 

associated with each TSL for the 

representative units. DOE calculated the 

energy use (in kWh/100 lb ice) 

associated with this reduction for the 

harvest capacity rates associated with 

the representative units (called 

representative capacities). This 

provided one or more points with which 

to define a TSL curve for the entire 

equipment class group as a function of 

harvest capacity rate. DOE selected the 

TSL curve to (a) pass through the points 

defining energy use for the TSL at the 

representative capacities; (b) be 

continuous, with no gaps at the 

representative capacities or at any other 

capacities; and (c) be consistent with the 

energy and capacity trends for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

commercialized products of the 

equipment class group. 

For the IMH–A–B equipment classes, 

DOE sought to set efficiency levels that 

do not vary with harvest capacity for the 

largest-capacity equipment, but doing so 

would have violated EPCA’s antibacksliding provisions. As a result, the 

efficiency levels for large-capacity 

equipment for this class in the range up 

to 2,500 lb ice/24 hours were set using 

multiple segments. This is discussed in 

section IV.D.2.c. 

For the RCU–RC–Large–B, RCU–RC– 

Small–C, and RCU–RC–Large–C 

equipment classes, the efficiency levels 

are 0.2 kWh/100 lb of ice higher than 

those of the RCU–NRC–Large–B, RCU– 

NRC–Small–C, and RCU–NRC–Large–C 

equipment classes, respectively, as 

discussed in section IV.D.2.a. The RCU– 

RC–Small–B and RCU–NRC–Small–B 

efficiency levels are equal, and the 

harvest capacity break points for the 

RCU–NRC classes have been set to avoid 

gaps in allowable energy usage at the 

breakpoints. 

The TSL energy use levels calculated 

for the representative capacities of the 

directly-analyzed equipment classes are 

presented Table V.6. 

TABLE V.6—ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY TSL FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER UNITS

Equipment class 

Representative 

harvest rate 

lb ice/24 hours 

Representative automatic commercial ice maker unit 

kWh/100 lb 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B .................................................... 300 5.54 5.54 5.23 5.23 4.67 

IMH–W–Med–B ...................................................... 850 4.18 4.18 4.18 4.00 3.76 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 ................................................ 1,500 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.68 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ................................................ 2,600 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.72 

IMH–A–Small–B ..................................................... 300 6.91 6.53 6.30 6.30 5.68 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 ................................................. 800 5.41 5.11 5.05 4.81 4.63 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 ................................................. 1,500 4.72 4.72 4.61 4.61 4.61 

RCU–NRC–Large–B–1 .......................................... 1,500 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.34 4.23 

RCU–NRC–Large–B–2 .......................................... 2,400 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.39 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................................... 300 6.84 6.08 5.70 5.34 5.34 

SCU–A–Small–B .................................................... 110 11.56 10.27 9.63 8.99 8.60 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................................... 200 8.82 7.84 7.35 6.96 6.96 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................................... 310 8.15 7.69 7.24 7.24 6.43 

IMH–A–Large–C .................................................... 820 5.94 5.94 5.61 5.61 5.08 

RCU–Small–C ........................................................ 800 5.70 5.38 5.06 5.06 4.62 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................................... 220 9.11 8.61 8.10 8.10 7.29 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Commercial 

Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Customers affected by new or 

amended standards usually incur higher 

purchase prices and lower operating 

costs. DOE evaluates these impacts on 

individual customers by calculating 

changes in LCC and the PBP associated 

with the TSLs. The results of the LCC 

analysis for each TSL were obtained by 

comparing the installed and operating 

costs of the equipment in the base-case 

scenario (scenario with no amended 

energy conservation standards) against 

the standards-case scenarios at each 

TSL. The energy consumption values for 

both the base-case and standards-case 

scenarios were calculated based on the 

DOE test procedure conditions specified 

in the 2012 test procedure final rule, 

which adopts an industry-accepted test 

method. Using the approach described 

in section IV.F, DOE calculated the LCC 

savings and PBPs for the TSLs 

considered in this final rule. The LCC 

analysis is carried out in the form of 

Monte Carlo simulations, and the results 

of LCC analysis are distributed over a 

range of values. DOE presents the mean 

or median values, as appropriate, 

calculated from the distributions of 

results. 

Table V.7 through Table V.25 show 

the results of the LCC analysis for each 

equipment class. Each table presents the 

results of the LCC analysis, including 

mean LCC, mean LCC savings, median 

PBP, and distribution of customer 

impacts in the form of percentages of 

customers who experience net cost, no 

impact, or net benefit. 

Only five equipment classes have 

positive LCC savings values at TSL 5, 

while the remaining classes have 

negative LCC savings. Negative average 

LCC savings imply that, on average, 

customers experience an increase in 

LCC of the equipment as a consequence 

of buying equipment associated with 

that particular TSL. In four of the five 

classes, the TSL 5 level is not negative, 

but the LCC savings are less than onethird the TSL 3 savings. All of these 

results indicate that the cost increments 

associated with the max-tech design 

option are high, and the increase in LCC 

(and corresponding decrease in LCC 

savings) indicates that the design 

options embodied in TSL 5 result in 

negative customer impacts. TSL 5 is 

associated with the max-tech level for 

all the equipment classes. Drain water 

heat exchanger technology is the design 

option associated with the max-tech 

efficiency levels for batch equipment 

classes. For continuous equipment 

classes, the max-tech design options are 

auger motors using permanent magnets. 

The mean LCC savings associated 

with TSL 4 are all positive values for all 

equipment classes. The mean LCC 

savings at all lower TSL levels are also 

positive. The trend is generally an 

increase in LCC savings for TSL 1 

through 3, with LCC savings either 

remaining constant or declining at TSL 

4. In two cases, the highest LCC savings 

are at TSL 2: IMH–A–Large–B1 and 

SCU–W–Large–B. In one case, IMH–A– 

Small–B, the highest LCC savings occur 

at TSL1. Two of the three classes with 

LCC savings maximums below TSL 3 

have high one-time installation cost 

adders for building renovations 

expected to take place when existing 

units are replaced, causing the TSL3 

LCC savings to be depressed relative to 

the lower levels. The drop-off in LCC 

savings at TSL 4 is generally associated 

with the relatively large cost for the 

max-tech design options, the savings for 

which frequently span the last two 

efficiency levels. 

As described in section IV.H.2, DOE 

used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario in this 

rulemaking. Under the roll-up scenario, 

DOE assumes that the market shares of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4723 

the efficiency levels (in the base case) 

that do not meet the standard level 

under consideration would be ‘‘rolled 

up’’ into (meaning ‘‘added to’’) the 

market share of the efficiency level at 

the standard level under consideration, 

and the market shares of efficiency 

levels that are above the standard level 

under consideration would remain 

unaffected. Customers, in the base-case 

scenario, who buy the equipment at or 

above the TSL under consideration, 

would be unaffected if the amended 

standard were to be set at that TSL. 

Customers, in the base-case scenario, 

who buy equipment below the 

considered TSL, would be affected if the 

amended standard were to be set at that 

TSL. Among these affected customers, 

some may benefit from lower LCC of the 

equipment and some may incur a net 

cost due to higher LCC, depending on 

the inputs to LCC analysis, such as 

electricity prices, discount rates, 

installation costs, and markups. DOE’s 

results indicate that, with two 

exceptions, nearly all customers either 

benefit or are unaffected by setting 

standards at TSLs 1, 2, or 3, with 0 to 

2 percent of customers experiencing a 

net cost in all but two classes. Some 

customers purchasing IMH–A–Small–B 

(21 percent) and IMH–A–Large–B2 (10 

percent) equipment will experience net 

costs at TSL3. In almost all cases, a 

portion of the market would experience 

net costs starting with TSL 4, although 

in several equipment classes the 

percentage is below 10 percent. At TSL 

5, only in IMH–A–Large–B2 (10 percent) 

and SCU–W–Large–B (44 percent) do 

less than 50 percent of customers show 

a net cost, while in the other classes the 

percentage of customers with a net cost 

ranges as high as 96 percent. 

The median PBP values for TSLs 1 

through 3 are generally less than 3 

years, except for IMH–A–Small–B 

where the TSL 3 PBP is 4.7 years and 

IMH–A–Large–B2 with a PBP of 6.9 

years. The median PBP values for TSL 

4 range from 0.7 years to 6.9 years. 

PBP values for TSL 5 range from 4.9 

years to nearly 12 years. In eight cases, 

the the PBP exceeds the expected 8.5- 

year equipment life. 

TABLE V.7—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–SMALL–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 2,551 2,476 9,533 12,009 175 0 63 37 2.5 

2 ............................ 2,551 2,476 9,533 12,009 175 0 63 37 2.5 

3 ............................ 2,411 2,537 9,381 11,918 214 1 47 52 2.7 

4 ............................ 2,411 2,537 9,381 11,918 214 1 47 52 2.7 

5 ............................ 2,162 3,371 9,200 12,571 (534 ) 96 0 4 13.4 

TABLE V.8—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–MED–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 5,439 4,325 21,470 25,795 308 0 44 56 2.1 

2 ............................ 5,439 4,325 21,470 25,795 308 0 44 56 2.1 

3 ............................ 5,439 4,325 21,470 25,795 308 0 44 56 2.1 

4 ............................ 5,138 4,607 21,251 25,857 165 28 24 47 5.0 

5 ............................ 4,951 4,943 21,115 26,058 (63 ) 65 9 26 7.6 

TABLE V.9—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 10,750 6,129 42,992 49,121 0 NA NA NA NA 

2 ............................ 10,750 6,129 42,992 49,121 0 NA NA NA NA 

3 ............................ 10,750 6,129 42,992 49,121 0 NA NA NA NA 

4 ............................ 10,750 6,129 42,992 49,121 0 NA NA NA NA 

5 ............................ 9,891 6,913 42,381 49,294 (172 ) 67 13 20 10.6 

TABLE V.10—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–LARGE–B1 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 9,166 5,004 37,051 42,055 0 NA NA NA NA 

2 ............................ 9,166 5,004 37,051 42,055 0 NA NA NA NA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.10—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–LARGE–B1 EQUIPMENT CLASS—Continued 

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

3 ............................ 9,166 5,004 37,051 42,055 0 NA NA NA NA 

4 ............................ 9,166 5,004 37,051 42,055 0 NA NA NA NA 

5 ............................ 8,405 5,747 36,509 42,256 (200 ) 70 13 17 11.1 

TABLE V.11—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–W–LARGE–B2 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 15,868 9,763 62,182 71,945 0 NA NA NA NA 

2 ............................ 15,868 9,763 62,182 71,945 0 NA NA NA NA 

3 ............................ 15,868 9,763 62,182 71,945 0 NA NA NA NA 

4 ............................ 15,868 9,763 62,182 71,945 0 NA NA NA NA 

5 ............................ 14,693 10,681 61,346 72,027 (80 ) 59 13 29 8.9 

TABLE V.12—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–SMALL–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 3,184 2,539 8,420 10,959 136 1 76 22 3.4 

2 ............................ 3,009 2,655 8,293 10,948 72 21 47 32 4.8 

3 ............................ 2,901 2,695 8,214 10,909 77 21 0 79 4.7 

4 ............................ 2,901 2,695 8,214 10,909 77 21 0 79 4.7 

5 ............................ 2,640 3,331 8,048 11,379 (393 ) 95 0 5 11.9 

TABLE V.13—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 7,272 4,337 14,598 18,935 382 1 69 30 2.2 

2 .............................. 6,964 4,418 14,230 18,648 501 1 45 53 2.4 

3 .............................. 6,881 4,435 14,170 18,605 361 2 12 86 2.3 

4 .............................. 6,622 4,711 13,988 18,699 265 31 12 57 3.9 

5 .............................. 6,411 5,068 13,834 18,902 55 53 10 37 5.6 

TABLE V.14—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–LARGE–B1 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 6,617 4,172 13,943 18,115 439 0 66 34 1.2 

2 .............................. 6,251 4,269 13,506 17,775 580 0 38 62 1.5 

3 .............................. 6,192 4,275 13,464 17,738 407 0 3 97 1.5 

4 .............................. 5,885 4,602 13,247 17,850 294 35 3 63 3.4 

5 .............................. 5,636 5,025 13,066 18,091 45 61 0 39 5.4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4725 

TABLE V.15—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–LARGE–B2 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 10,802 5,222 18,129 23,350 76 9 83 8 7.4 

2 .............................. 10,802 5,222 18,129 23,350 76 9 83 8 7.4 

3 .............................. 10,591 5,298 17,975 23,273 110 10 61 29 6.9 

4 .............................. 10,591 5,298 17,975 23,273 110 10 61 29 6.9 

5 .............................. 10,591 5,298 17,975 23,273 110 10 61 29 6.9 

TABLE V.16—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR RCU–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 10,908 6,423 14,588 21,012 748 0 56 44 1.1 

2 .............................. 10,908 6,423 14,588 21,012 748 0 56 44 1.1 

3 .............................. 10,908 6,423 14,588 21,012 748 0 56 44 1.1 

4 .............................. 10,362 6,813 14,213 21,026 418 23 22 55 3.3 

5 .............................. 10,066 7,207 14,000 21,206 144 55 2 42 5.0 

TABLE V.17—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR RCU–LARGE–B1 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 10,514 6,220 14,190 20,410 743 0 56 44 0.9 

2 .............................. 10,514 6,220 14,190 20,410 743 0 56 44 0.9 

3 .............................. 10,514 6,220 14,190 20,410 743 0 56 44 0.9 

4 .............................. 9,931 6,635 13,790 20,425 391 25 20 55 3.4 

5 .............................. 9,664 6,985 13,595 20,580 161 55 1 44 4.9 

TABLE V.18—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR RCU–LARGE–B2 EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 16,807 9,465 20,540 30,005 820 1 56 43 3.0 

2 ............................ 16,807 9,465 20,540 30,005 820 1 56 43 3.0 

3 ............................ 16,807 9,465 20,540 30,005 820 1 56 43 3.0 

4 ............................ 16,807 9,465 20,540 30,005 820 1 56 43 3.0 

5 ............................ 16,077 10,516 20,046 30,562 (109 ) 57 20 23 7.0 

TABLE V.19—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SCU–W–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 3,151 3,540 10,617 14,158 444 0 28 72 1.1 

2 .............................. 2,804 3,620 10,364 13,984 613 0 28 72 1.6 

3 .............................. 2,630 3,664 10,238 13,902 550 0 5 94 1.8 

4 .............................. 2,464 4,114 10,117 14,231 192 44 0 56 5.1 

5 .............................. 2,464 4,114 10,117 14,231 192 44 0 56 5.1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.20—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SCU–A–SMALL–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 1,962 2,799 7,193 9,992 110 0 48 52 2.2 

2 ............................ 1,747 2,845 7,051 9,896 161 1 20 79 2.4 

3 ............................ 1,639 2,918 6,843 9,761 281 1 12 87 2.6 

4 ............................ 1,532 3,000 6,778 9,778 230 16 0 84 3.5 

5 ............................ 1,473 3,416 6,737 10,153 (145 ) 77 0 23 8.9 

TABLE V.21—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SCU–A–LARGE–B EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 2,713 3,275 10,070 13,344 163 0 37 63 1.8 

2 .............................. 2,414 3,345 9,685 13,030 400 0 1 99 1.6 

3 .............................. 2,265 3,402 9,590 12,992 439 0 1 99 2.1 

4 .............................. 2,141 3,854 9,500 13,355 71 54 0 46 6.5 

5 .............................. 2,141 3,854 9,500 13,355 71 54 0 46 6.5 

TABLE V.22—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–SMALL–C EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 3,872 6,674 8,869 15,543 245 0 69 31 1.5 

2 ............................ 3,658 6,709 8,723 15,432 292 0 58 42 1.6 

3 ............................ 3,445 6,745 8,572 15,317 313 0 39 61 1.7 

4 ............................ 3,445 6,745 8,572 15,317 313 0 39 61 1.7 

5 ............................ 3,201 7,264 8,552 15,816 (165 ) 68 14 18 8.8 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. 

TABLE V.23—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR IMH–A–LARGE–C EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 .............................. 7,445 5,538 14,275 19,813 539 0 57 43 0.7 

2 .............................. 7,445 5,538 14,275 19,813 539 0 57 43 0.7 

3 .............................. 7,033 5,568 13,979 19,547 626 0 35 65 0.7 

4 .............................. 7,033 5,568 13,979 19,547 626 0 35 65 0.7 

5 .............................. 6,348 6,310 13,705 20,015 28 54 9 37 5.9 

TABLE V.24—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR RCU–SMALL–C EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 6,966 5,690 8,588 14,278 498 0 72 28 0.7 

2 ............................ 6,580 5,758 8,319 14,078 448 0 44 55 1.2 

3 ............................ 6,195 5,808 8,046 13,854 505 0 11 89 1.2 

4 ............................ 6,195 5,808 8,046 13,854 505 0 11 89 1.2 

5 ............................ 5,688 6,523 7,878 14,402 (73 ) 64 6 31 5.8 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4727 

TABLE V.25—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SCU–A–SMALL–C EQUIPMENT CLASS

TSL 

Energy 

usage 

kWh/yr 

Life-cycle cost, all customers 

2013$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Payback 

period, 

median 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Affected 

customers’ 

average 

savings 

2013$ 

% of customers that experience 

Net 

cost 

% 

No 

impact 

% 

Net 

benefit 

% 

1 ............................ 3,077 3,622 8,175 11,797 224 0 56 44 0.8 

2 ............................ 2,907 3,646 8,059 11,705 278 0 47 53 1.1 

3 ............................ 2,738 3,685 7,948 11,633 290 1 32 67 1.5 

4 ............................ 2,738 3,685 7,948 11,633 290 1 32 67 1.5 

5 ............................ 2,515 4,224 7,950 12,174 (268 ) 86 0 14 11.4 

* Values in parentheses are negative values. 

b. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis 

As described in section IV.I, DOE 

estimated the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers, at each TSL, on 

two customer subgroups—the 

foodservice sector and the lodging 

sector. For the automatic commercial ice 

makers, DOE has not distinguished 

between subsectors of the foodservice 

industry. In other words, DOE has been 

treating it as one sector as opposed to 

modeling limited or full service 

restaurants and other types of 

foodservice firms separately. 

Foodservice was chosen as one 

representative subgroup because of the 

large percentage of the industry 

represented by family-owned or locally 

owned restaurants. Likewise, lodging 

was chosen due to the large percentage 

of the industry represented by locally 

owned or franchisee-owned hotels. DOE 

carried out two LCC subgroup analyses, 

one each for restaurants and lodging, by 

using the LCC spreadsheet described in 

chapter 8 of the final rule TSD, but with 

certain modifications. This included 

fixing the input for business type to the 

identified subgroup, which ensured that 

the discount rates and electricity price 

rates associated with only that subgroup 

were selected in the Monte Carlo 

simulations (see chapter 8 of the TSD). 

Another major change from the LCC 

analysis was an added assumption that 

the subgroups do not have access to 

national capital markets, which results 

in higher discount rates for the 

subgroups. The higher discount rates 

lead the subgroups to place a lower 

value on future savings and a higher 

value on the upfront equipment 

purchase costs. The LCC subgroup 

analysis is described in chapter 11 of 

the TSD. 

Table V.26 presents the comparison of 

mean LCC savings for the small business 

subgroup in foodservice sector with the 

national average values (LCC savings 

results from chapter 8 of the TSD). For 

TSLs 1–3, in most equipment classes, 

the LCC savings for the small business 

subgroup are only slightly different from 

the average, with some slightly higher 

and others slightly lower. Table V.27 

presents the percentage change in LCC 

savings compared to national average 

values. DOE modeled all equipment 

classes in this analysis, although DOE 

believes it is likely that the very large 

equipment classes are not commonly 

used in foodservice establishments. For 

TSLs 1–3, the differences range from ¥7 

percent for IMH–A–Large–B2 at TSLs 1 

and 2, to +3 percent for the same class 

at TSL 3 and IMH–A–Small–B at TSL 2. 

For most equipment classes in Table 

V.27, the percentage change ranges from 

a decrease in LCC savings of less than 

2 percent to an increase of 2 percent. In 

summary, the differences are minor at 

TSLs 1–3. 

Table V.28 presents the comparison of 

median PBPs for the small business 

subgroup in the foodservice sector with 

national median values (median PBPs 

from chapter 8 of the TSD). The PBP 

values are the same as or shorter than 

the small business subgroup in all cases. 

This arises because the first-year 

operating cost savings—which are used 

for payback period—are higher, leading 

to a shorter payback. However, given 

their higher discount rates, these 

customers value future savings less, 

leading to lower LCC savings. First-year 

savings are higher because the 

foodservice electricity prices are higher 

than the average of all classes. 

Table V.29 presents the comparison of 

mean LCC savings for the small business 

subgroup in the lodging sector (hotels 

and casinos) with the national average 

values (LCC savings results from chapter 

8 of the TSD). Table V.30 presents the 

percentage difference between LCC 

savings of the lodging sector customer 

subgroup and national average values. 

For lodging sector small business, LCC 

savings are lower across the board. For 

TSLs 1–3, the lodging subgroup LCC 

savings range from 9 to 13 percent 

lower. The reason for this is that the 

energy price for lodging is slightly lower 

than the average of all commercial 

business types (97 percent of the 

average). This, combined with a higher 

discount rate, reduces the value of 

future operating and maintenance 

benefits as well as the present value of 

the benefits, thus resulting in lower LCC 

savings. For IMH–A–Small–B the 

difference exceeds 20 percent, which is 

likely due to the higher installation cost 

for this class in combination with the 

much higher than average discount rate. 

The IMH–A–Large–B2 class is also 

significantly lower, in percentage terms. 

DOE notes that the difference is 

relatively small in terms of dollars; 

however, because the national average 

savings are small, the difference is 

significant in percentage terms. The 

lodging subgroup savings for IMH–A– 

Large–B2 are 88 percent lower than the 

average at TSLs 1 and 2, and 37 percent 

lower at TSL 3—the level recommended 

for the standard. 

Table V.31 presents the comparison of 

median PBPs for the small business 

subgroup in the lodging sector with 

national median values (median PBPs 

from chapter 8 of the TSD). The PBP 

values are slightly longer or the same for 

all equipment classes in the lodging 

small business subgroup at all TSLs. As 

noted above, the energy savings would 

be lower than a national average. Thus, 

the slightly lower median PBP appears 

to be a result of a narrower electricity 

saving results distribution that is close 

to but below the national average. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.26—COMPARISON OF MEAN LCC SAVINGS FOR THE FOODSERVICE SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP WITH

THE NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES

Equipment class Category 

Mean LCC savings 

2013$ * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 174 174 212 212 (535 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 175 175 214 214 (534 ) 

IMH–W–Med–B ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 312 312 312 168 (60 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 308 308 308 165 (63 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA (169 ) 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA (172 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .................................. Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA (198 ) 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA (200 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .................................. Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA (77 ) 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA (80 ) 

IMH–A–Small–B ...................................... Small Business ....................................... 139 75 78 78 (390 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 136 72 77 77 (393 ) 

IMH–A–Large–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 387 498 359 264 54 

All Business Types ................................. 382 501 361 265 55 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 444 575 404 292 43 

All Business Types ................................. 439 580 407 294 45 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 81 81 114 114 114 

All Business Types ................................. 76 76 110 110 110 

RCU–Large–B ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 754 754 754 424 150 

All Business Types ................................. 748 748 748 418 144 

RCU–Large–B1 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 749 749 749 397 166 

All Business Types ................................. 743 743 743 391 161 

RCU–Large–B2 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 832 832 832 832 (99 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 820 820 820 820 (109 ) 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................... Small Business ....................................... 431 601 541 184 184 

All Business Types ................................. 444 613 550 192 192 

SCU–A–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 112 162 276 226 (148 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 110 161 281 230 (145 ) 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 164 392 432 65 65 

All Business Types ................................. 163 400 439 71 71 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 248 296 317 317 (155 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 245 292 313 313 (165 ) 

IMH–A–Large–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 544 544 630 630 44 

All Business Types ................................. 539 539 626 626 28 

RCU–Small–C ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 503 453 509 509 (57 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 498 448 505 505 (73 ) 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................... Small Business ....................................... 225 281 293 293 (257 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 224 278 290 290 (268 ) 

* Values in parenthesis are negative numbers. 

TABLE V.27—PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN MEAN LCC SAVINGS FOR THE FOODSERVICE SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS

SUBGROUP COMPARED TO NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES * 

Equipment class TSL 1 

(%) 

TSL 2 

(%) 

TSL 3 

(%) 

TSL 4 

(%) 

TSL 5 

(%) 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 0 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 1 1 1 2 5 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 1 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 1 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 4 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 2 3 2 2 1 

IMH–A–Large–B ...................................................................................... 1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥2 

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................... 1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥1 ¥4 

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................... 7 7 3 3 3 

RCU–Large–B .......................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 4 

RCU–Large–B1 ........................................................................................ 1 1 1 1 3 

RCU–Large–B2 ........................................................................................ 1 1 1 1 9 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... ¥3 ¥2 ¥2 ¥4 ¥4 

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 1 1 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 1 ¥2 ¥2 ¥9 ¥9 

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 6 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 57 

RCU–Small–C .......................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 22 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 4 

* Negative percentage values imply decrease in LCC savings, and positive percentage values imply increase in LCC savings. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4729 

TABLE V.28—COMPARISON OF MEDIAN PAYBACK PERIODS FOR THE FOODSERVICE SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP

WITH NATIONAL MEDIAN VALUES

Equipment class Category 

Median payback period 

years 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.7 12.7 

All Business Types ................................. 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 13.4 

IMH–W–Med–B ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.8 7.2 

All Business Types ................................. 2.1 2.1 2.1 5.0 7.6 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA 10.0 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA 10.6 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .................................. Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA 10.5 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA 11.1 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .................................. Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA 8.4 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA 8.9 

IMH–A–Small–B ...................................... Small Business ....................................... 3.2 4.5 4.4 4.4 11.4 

All Business Types ................................. 3.4 4.8 4.7 4.7 11.9 

IMH–A–Large–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 2.1 2.3 2.2 3.7 5.3 

All Business Types ................................. 2.2 2.4 2.3 3.9 5.6 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.1 1.4 1.4 3.2 5.1 

All Business Types ................................. 1.2 1.5 1.5 3.4 5.4 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 

All Business Types ................................. 7.4 7.4 6.9 6.9 6.9 

RCU–Large–B ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.2 4.8 

All Business Types ................................. 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.3 5.0 

RCU–Large–B1 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.2 4.7 

All Business Types ................................. 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.4 4.9 

RCU–Large–B2 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 6.7 

All Business Types ................................. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.1 1.5 1.7 4.9 4.9 

All Business Types ................................. 1.1 1.6 1.8 5.1 5.1 

SCU–A–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.3 8.4 

All Business Types ................................. 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.5 8.9 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.7 1.6 2.0 6.2 6.2 

All Business Types ................................. 1.8 1.6 2.1 6.5 6.5 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 8.3 

All Business Types ................................. 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 8.8 

IMH–A–Large–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 5.5 

All Business Types ................................. 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 5.9 

RCU–Small–C ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.2 5.5 

All Business Types ................................. 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.8 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.4 10.6 

All Business Types ................................. 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.5 11.4 

TABLE V.29—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS FOR THE LODGING SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP WITH THE

NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES

Equipment class Category 

Mean LCC savings 

2013$ * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 155 155 189 189 (561 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 175 175 214 214 (534 ) 

IMH–W–Med–B ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 275 275 275 123 (109 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 308 308 308 165 (63 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA (221 ) 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA (172 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .................................. Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA (244 ) 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA (200 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .................................. Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA (148 ) 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA (80 ) 

IMH–A–Small–B ...................................... Small Business ....................................... 118 54 61 61 (423 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 136 72 77 77 (393 ) 

IMH–A–Large–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 337 443 321 211 (10 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 382 501 361 265 55 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 398 523 368 237 (25 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 439 580 407 294 45 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 9 9 70 70 70 

All Business Types ................................. 76 76 110 110 110 

RCU–Large–B ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 679 679 679 347 71 

All Business Types ................................. 748 748 748 418 144 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.29—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS FOR THE LODGING SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP WITH THE

NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES—Continued 

Equipment class Category 

Mean LCC savings 

2013$ * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

RCU–Large–B1 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 676 676 676 322 90 

All Business Types ................................. 743 743 743 391 161 

RCU–Large–B2 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 718 718 718 718 (205 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 820 820 820 820 (109 ) 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................... Small Business ....................................... 404 553 494 129 129 

All Business Types ................................. 444 613 550 192 192 

SCU–A–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 98 142 248 196 (182 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 110 161 281 230 (145 ) 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 146 361 392 18 18 

All Business Types ................................. 163 400 439 71 71 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 222 263 282 282 (189 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 245 292 313 313 (165 ) 

IMH–A–Large–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 493 493 571 571 (33 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 539 539 626 626 28 

RCU–Small–C ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 456 406 456 456 (133 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 498 448 505 505 (73 ) 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................... Small Business ....................................... 204 253 261 261 (288 ) 

All Business Types ................................. 224 278 290 290 (268 ) 

* Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

TABLE V.30—PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN MEAN LCC SAVINGS FOR THE LODGING SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP

COMPARED TO NATIONAL AVERAGE VALUES * 

Equipment class TSL1 

(%) 

TSL2 

(%) 

TSL3 

(%) 

TSL4 

(%) 

TSL5 

(%) 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... –11 –11 –12 –12 –5 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ –11 –11 –11 –26 –72 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................................................................... NA NA NA NA –29 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................... NA NA NA NA –22 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................... NA NA NA NA –84 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... –13 –25 –21 –21 –7 

IMH–A–Large–B ...................................................................................... –12 –12 –11 –20 –118 

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................... –9 –10 –10 –19 –155 

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................... –88 –88 –37 –37 –37 

RCU–Large–B .......................................................................................... –9 –9 –9 –17 –50 

RCU–Large–B1 ........................................................................................ –9 –9 –9 –18 –44 

RCU–Large–B2 ........................................................................................ –12 –12 –12 –12 –88 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... –9 –10 –10 –33 –33 

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... –11 –11 –12 –15 –26 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... –10 –10 –11 –75 –75 

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... –9 –10 –10 –10 –15 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... –9 –9 –9 –9 –215 

RCU–Small–C .......................................................................................... –8 –9 –10 –10 –83 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... –9 –9 –10 –10 –7 

* Negative percentage values imply decrease in LCC savings, and positive percentage values imply increase in LCC savings. 

TABLE V.31—COMPARISON OF MEDIAN PAYBACK PERIODS FOR THE LODGING SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP WITH

THE NATIONAL MEDIAN VALUES

Equipment class Category 

Median payback period 

years 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.8 13.5 

All Business Types ................................. 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 13.4 

IMH–W–Med–B ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 2.1 2.1 2.1 5.1 7.7 

All Business Types ................................. 2.1 2.1 2.1 5.0 7.6 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA 10.7 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA 10.6 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .................................. Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA 11.2 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA 11.1 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .................................. Small Business ....................................... NA NA NA NA 9.0 

All Business Types ................................. NA NA NA NA 8.9 

IMH–A–Small–B ...................................... Small Business ....................................... 3.4 4.8 4.7 4.7 12.3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4731 

TABLE V.31—COMPARISON OF MEDIAN PAYBACK PERIODS FOR THE LODGING SECTOR SMALL BUSINESS SUBGROUP WITH

THE NATIONAL MEDIAN VALUES—Continued 

Equipment class Category 

Median payback period 

years 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

All Business Types ................................. 3.4 4.8 4.7 4.7 11.9 

IMH–A–Large–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 2.2 2.4 2.3 3.9 5.7 

All Business Types ................................. 2.2 2.4 2.3 3.9 5.6 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.2 1.5 1.5 3.4 5.4 

All Business Types ................................. 1.2 1.5 1.5 3.4 5.4 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ................................... Small Business ....................................... 7.5 7.5 6.9 6.9 6.9 

All Business Types ................................. 7.4 7.4 6.9 6.9 6.9 

RCU–Large–B ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.4 5.1 

All Business Types ................................. 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.3 5.0 

RCU–Large–B1 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.5 5.0 

All Business Types ................................. 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.4 4.9 

RCU–Large–B2 ....................................... Small Business ....................................... 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 7.1 

All Business Types ................................. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.1 1.6 1.8 5.2 5.2 

All Business Types ................................. 1.1 1.6 1.8 5.1 5.1 

SCU–A–Small–B ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.5 8.9 

All Business Types ................................. 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.5 8.9 

SCU–A–Large–B .................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.8 1.6 2.1 6.6 6.6 

All Business Types ................................. 1.8 1.6 2.1 6.5 6.5 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 9.0 

All Business Types ................................. 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 8.8 

IMH–A–Large–C ..................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 6.0 

All Business Types ................................. 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 5.9 

RCU–Small–C ......................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.9 

All Business Types ................................. 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.8 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................... Small Business ....................................... 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.5 11.7 

All Business Types ................................. 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.5 11.4 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers. The following section 

describes the expected impacts on 

manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 

of the final rule TSD explains the 

analysis in further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

The following tables depict the 

financial impacts of the new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers. The financial 

impacts are represented by changes in 

the industry net present value (INPV.) In 

addition, the tables depict the 

conversion costs that DOE estimates 

manufacturers would incur for all 

equipment classes at each TSL. The 

impact of the energy efficiency 

standards on industry cash flow were 

analyzed under two markup scenarios 

that correspond to the range of 

anticipated market responses to 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

The first markup scenario assessed 

the lower bound of potential impacts 

(higher profitability). DOE modeled a 

preservation of gross margin percentage 

markup scenario, in which a uniform 

‘‘gross margin percentage’’ markup is 

applied across all efficiency levels. In 

this scenario, DOE assumed that a 

manufacturer’s absolute dollar markup 

would increase as production costs 

increase in the amended energy 

conservation standards case. 

Manufacturers have indicated that it is 

optimistic to assume that they would be 

able to maintain the same gross margin 

percentage markup as their production 

costs increase in response to a new or 

amended energy conservation standard, 

particularly at higher TSLs. 

The second markup scenario assessed 

the upper bound of potential impacts 

(lower profitability). DOE modeled the 

preservation of the EBIT markup 

scenario, which assumes that 

manufacturers would not be able to 

preserve the same overall gross margin, 

but instead would lower their markup 

for marginally compliant products to 

maintain a cost-competitive product 

offering and keep the same overall level 

of EBIT as in the base case. Table V.32 

and Table V.33 show the range of 

potential INPV impacts for 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers. The first table reflects the 

lower bound of impacts (higher 

profitability), and the second represents 

the upper bound of impacts (lower 

profitability). 

Each scenario results in a unique set 

of cash flows and corresponding 

industry values at each TSL. In the 

following discussion, the INPV results 

refer to the sum of discounted cash 

flows through 2047, the difference in 

INPV between the base case and each 

standards case, and the total industry 

conversion costs required for each 

standards case. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4732 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.32—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS

MARGIN PERCENTAGE MARKUP SCENARIO * 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ............................................. 2013$ millions ............................. 121.6 115.0 112.3 109.5 109.3 109.8 

Change in INPV ........................... 2013$ millions ............................. .................. (6.6 ) (9.3 ) (12.1 ) (12.3 ) (11.8 ) 

% ................................................. .................. (5.4 ) (7.7 ) (10.0 ) (10.1 ) (9.7 ) 

Product Conversion Costs ........... 2013$ millions ............................. .................. 12.3 18.1 23.8 28.1 40.3 

Capital Conversion Costs ............ 2013$ millions ............................. .................. 0.2 0.6 1.3 2.0 3.9 

Total Conversion Costs ........ 2013$ millions ............................. .................. 12.6 18.7 25.1 30.0 44.1 

* Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

TABLE V.33—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS—PRESERVATION OF EBIT 

MARKUP SCENARIO * 

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ............................................. 2013$ millions ............................. 121.6 114.1 110.4 106.5 103.0 91.6 

Change in INPV ........................... 2013$ millions ............................. .................. (7.5 ) (11.2 ) (15.1 ) (18.6 ) (30.0 ) 

% ................................................. .................. (6.2 ) (9.2 ) (12.5 ) (15.3 ) (24.6 ) 

Product Conversion Costs ........... 2013$ millions ............................. .................. 12.3 18.1 23.8 28.1 40.3 

Capital Conversion Costs ............ 2013$ millions ............................. .................. 0.2 0.6 1.3 2.0 3.9 

Total Conversion Costs ........ 2013$ millions ............................. .................. 12.6 18.7 25.1 30.0 44.1 

* Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

Beyond impacts on INPV, DOE 

includes a comparison of free cash flow 

between the base case and the standards 

case at each TSL in the year before 

amended standards take effect to 

provide perspective on the short-run 

cash flow impacts in the discussion of 

the following results. 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$7.5 million to ¥$6.6 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥6.2 percent to ¥5.4 

percent. At this TSL, industry free cash 

flow is estimated to decrease to $6.7 

million, or a drop of 35.7 percent, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$10.4 million in the year before the 

compliance date (2017). 

DOE estimates that approximately 27 

percent of all batch commercial ice 

makers and 29 percent of all continuous 

commercial ice makers on the market 

will require redesign to meet standards 

at TSL 1. At this TSL DOE expects 

capital and product conversion costs of 

$0.2 million and $12.3 million, 

respectively. Combined, the total 

conversion cost is $12.5 million. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$11.2 million to ¥$9.3 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥9.2 percent to ¥7.7 

percent. At this TSL, industry free cash 

flow is estimated to decrease to $4.8 

million, or a drop of 53.5 percent, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$10.4 million in the year before the 

compliance date (2017). 

DOE estimates that approximately 39 

percent of all batch commercial ice 

makers and 41 percent of all continuous 

commercial ice makers on the market 

will require redesign to meet standards 

at TSL 2. At this TSL, DOE expects 

industry capital and product conversion 

costs of $0.6 million and of $18.1 

million, respectively. Combined, the 

total conversion cost is $18.7 million, 48 

percent higher than those incurred by 

industry at TSL 1. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$15.1 million to ¥$12.1 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥12.5 percent to 

¥10.0 percent. At this TSL, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

to $2.9 million, or a drop of 72.4 

percent, compared to the base-case 

value of $10.4 million in the year before 

the compliance date (2017). 

DOE estimates that approximately 51 

percent of all batch commercial ice 

makers and 55 percent of all continuous 

commercial ice makers on the market 

will require redesign to meet standards 

at TSL 3. At this TSL, DOE expects 

industry capital and product conversion 

costs of $23.8 million and of $1.3 

million, respectively. Combined, the 

total conversion cost is $25.1 million, 34 

percent higher than those incurred by 

industry at TSL 2. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$18.6 million to ¥$12.3 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥15.3 percent to 

¥10.1 percent. At this TSL, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

to $0.9 million, or a drop of 91.1 

percent, compared to the base-case 

value of $10.4 million in the year before 

the compliance date (2017). 

DOE estimates that approximately 66 

percent of all batch commercial ice 

makers and 55 percent of all continuous 

commercial ice makers on the market 

will require redesign to meet standards 

at TSL 4. Additionally, for four 

equipment classes, there is only one 

manufacturer with products that 

currently meet the standard. At this 

TSL, DOE expects industry capital and 

product conversion costs of $2.0 million 

and of $28.1 million, respectively. 

Combined, the total conversion cost is 

$30.0 million, 20 percent higher than 

those incurred by industry at TSL 3. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV for manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers to range from 

¥$30.0 million to ¥$11.8 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥24.6 percent to 

¥9.7 percent. At this TSL, industry free 

cash flow is estimated to decrease to 

¥$5.3 million, or a drop of 151.1 

percent, compared to the base-case 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4733 

value of $10.4 million in the year before 

the compliance date (2017). 

DOE estimates that approximately 84 

percent of all batch commercial ice 

makers and 78 percent of all continuous 

commercial ice makers on the market 

will require redesign to meet standards 

at TSL 5. Additionally, for five 

equipment classes, there is only one 

manufacturer with products that 

currently meet the standard. At this 

TSL, DOE expects industry capital and 

product conversion costs of $3.9 million 

and of $40.3 million, respectively. 

Combined, the total conversion cost is 

$44.1 million, 47 percent higher than 

those incurred by industry at TSL 4. 

b. Impacts on Direct Employment 

DOE used the GRIM to estimate the 

domestic labor expenditures and 

number of domestic production workers 

in the base case and at each TSL from 

2015 through 2047. DOE used statistical 

data from the most recent U.S Census 

Bureau’s 2011 Annual Survey of 

Manufactures (ASM), the results of the 

engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to determine the 

inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and domestic 

employment levels. Labor expenditures 

related to the manufacture of a product 

are a function of the labor intensity of 

the product, the sales volume, and an 

assumption that wages in real terms 

remain constant. 

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of each product and the 

manufacturing production costs from 

the engineering analysis to estimate the 

annual labor expenditures in the 

automatic commercial ice maker 

industry. The total labor expenditures in 

the GRIM were then converted to 

domestic production employment levels 

by dividing production labor 

expenditures by the annual payment per 

production worker (production worker 

hours multiplied by the labor rate found 

in the U.S. Census Bureau’s ASM). 

The estimates of production workers 

in this section cover workers, including 

line-supervisors, who are directly 

involved in fabricating and assembling 

automatic commercial ice makers 

within an original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) facility. Workers 

performing services that are closely 

associated with production operations, 

such as material handling with a 

forklift, are also included as production 

labor. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table V.34 represent the potential 

production employment changes that 

could result following the compliance 

date of new and amended energy 

conservation standards. The upper end 

of the employment results in Table V.34 

estimates the maximum increase in the 

number of production workers after 

implementation of new or amended 

energy conservation standards and it 

assumes that manufacturers continue to 

produce the same scope of covered 

products in the U.S. The lower end of 

employment results in Table V.34 

represent the maximum decrease to the 

total number of U.S. production workers 

in the industry due to manufacturers 

moving production outside of the U.S. 

While the results present a range of 

employment impacts following the 

compliance date of the new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards, the following discussion also 

includes a qualitative discussion of the 

likelihood of negative employment 

impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 

employment impacts shown are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 13 of the 

final rule TSD. 

DOE estimates that in the absence of 

amended energy conservation 

standards, there would be 389 domestic 

production workers involved in 

manufacturing automatic commercial 

ice makers in 2018. Using 2011 Census 

Bureau data and interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 84 percent of automatic 

commercial ice makers sold in the 

United States are manufactured 

domestically. Table V.34 shows the 

range of the impacts of potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

on U.S. production workers in the 

automatic commercial ice maker 

industry. 

TABLE V.34—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER

PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2018 

Base case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2018 

(without changes in production locations) .................... 389 391 402 414 418 444 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 

2018 * ............................................................................ .................... (389) to 2 (389) to 13 (389) to 25 (389) to 29 (389) to 55 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

At all TSLs, most of the design 

options analyzed by DOE do not greatly 

alter the labor content of the final 

product. For example, the use of higher 

efficiency compressors or fan motors 

involve one-time changes to the final 

product but do not significantly change 

the amount of production hours 

required for the final assembly. One 

manufacturer suggested that their 

domestic production employment levels 

would only change if market demand 

contracted following higher overall 

prices. However, more than one 

manufacturer suggested that where they 

already have overseas manufacturing 

capabilities, they would consider 

moving additional manufacturing to 

those facilities if they felt the need to 

offset a significant rise in materials 

costs. Provided the changes in materials 

costs do not support the relocation of 

manufacturing facilities, DOE would 

expect only modest changes to domestic 

manufacturing employment balancing 

additional requirements for assembly 

labor with the effects of price elasticity. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

According to the majority of 

automatic commercial ice maker 

manufacturers interviewed, new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

that require modest changes to product 

efficiency will not significantly affect 

manufacturers’ production capacities. 

Any redesign of automatic commercial 

ice makers would not change the 

fundamental assembly of the 

equipment, but manufacturers do 

anticipate some potential for additional 

lead time immediately following 

standards associated with changes in 

sourcing of higher efficiency 

components, which may be supply 

constrained. 

One manufacturer cited the 

possibility of a 3- to 6-month shutdown 

in the event that amended standards 

were set high enough to require 

retooling of their entire product line. 

Most of the design options that were 

evaluated are already available on the 

market as product options. Thus, DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

believes that, short of widespread 

retooling, manufacturers will be able to 

maintain manufacturing capacity levels 

and continue to meet market demand 

under amended energy conservation 

standards. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Small business, low-volume, niche 

equipment manufacturers, and 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure substantially different from the 

industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. As discussed in 

section IV.J, using average cost 

assumptions to develop an industry 

cash flow estimate is inadequate to 

assess differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. 

For automatic commercial ice makers, 

DOE identified and evaluated the 

impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on one subgroup: small 

manufacturers. The SBA defines a 

‘‘small business’’ as having fewer than 

750 employees for NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing,’’ which includes icemaking machinery manufacturing. DOE 

identified seven manufacturers in the 

automatic commercial ice makers 

industry that meet this definition. 

For a discussion of the impacts on the 

small manufacturer subgroup, see the 

regulatory flexibility analysis in section 

VI.B of this preamble and chapter 12 of 

the final rule TSD. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

equipment efficiency. 

For the cumulative regulatory burden 

analysis, DOE looks at other regulations 

that could affect ACIM manufacturers 

that will take effect approximately 3 

years before or after the 2018 

compliance date of amended energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. In written comments, 

manufacturers cited Federal regulations 

on equipment other than automatic 

commercial ice makers that contribute 

to their cumulative regulatory burden. 

The compliance years and expected 

industry conversion costs of relevant 

amended energy conservation standards 

are indicated in Table V.35. 

TABLE V.35—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS AFFECTING AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER MANUFACTURERS

Federal energy conservation standards Approximate 

compliance date 

Estimated total 

industry 

conversion 

expense 

Commercial refrigeration equipment, 79 FR 17725 (March 28, 2014) ................................................... 2017 $184.0M, (2012$) 

Walk-in Coolers and Freezers, 79 FR 32049 (June 3, 2014) ................................................................. 2017 $33.6.0M, (2012$) 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Equipment * ................................................................................................ TBD TBD 

* The final rule for this energy conservation standard has not been published. The compliance date and analysis of conversion costs have not 

been finalized at this time. 

DOE discusses these and other 

requirements and includes the full 

details of the cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis in chapter 12 of the 

final rule TSD. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Amount and Significance of Energy 

Savings 

DOE estimated the NES by calculating 

the difference in annual energy 

consumption for the base-case scenario 

and standards-case scenario at each TSL 

for each equipment class and summing 

up the annual energy savings for the 

automatic commercial ice maker 

equipment purchased during the 30- 

year 2018 through 2047 analysis period. 

Energy impacts include the 30-year 

period, plus the life of equipment 

purchased in the last year of the 

analysis, or roughly 2018 through 2057. 

The energy consumption calculated in 

the NIA is full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy, 

which quantifies savings beginning at 

the source of energy production. DOE 

also reports primary or source energy 

that takes into account losses in the 

generation and transmission of 

electricity. FFC and primary energy are 

discussed in section IV.H.3. 

Table V.36 presents the source NES 

for all equipment classes at each TSL 

and the sum total of NES for each TSL. 

Table V.37 presents the energy 

savings at each TSL for each equipment 

class in the form of percentage of the 

cumulative energy use of the equipment 

stock in the base-case scenario. 

TABLE V.36—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AT SOURCE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047 

[Quads] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * ** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.009 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.010 

IMH–W–Large–B † ................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.011 0.023 0.037 0.037 0.071 

IMH–A–Large–B † .................................................................................... 0.019 0.034 0.039 0.058 0.075

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4735 

TABLE V.36—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AT SOURCE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047— 

Continued 

[Quads] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * ** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................... 0.016 0.031 0.035 0.055 0.071

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003

RCU–Large–B † ....................................................................................... 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.029 0.037 

RCU–Large–B1 ........................................................................................ 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.027 0.035 

RCU–Large–B2 ........................................................................................ 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.007 0.018 0.024 0.032 0.036 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.006 0.014 0.019 0.023 0.023

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.009 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.006 

RCU–Small–C .......................................................................................... 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.005 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.006 0.010 0.015 0.015 0.023 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.077 0.130 0.171 0.219 0.307 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NES rounds to less than 0.001 quads. 

** Numbers may not add to totals, due to rounding. 

† IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the two typical units denoted by B1 and B2. 

TABLE V.37—CUMULATIVE SOURCE ENERGY SAVINGS BY TSL AS A PERCENTAGE OF CUMULATIVE BASELINE ENERGY

USAGE OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047 

Equipment class 

Base case 

energy 

usage 

(quads) 

TSL Savings as percent of baseline usage 

TSL 1 

(%) 

TSL 2 

(%) 

TSL 3 

(%) 

TSL 4 

(%) 

TSL 5 

(%) 

IMH–W–Small–B .............................................................. 0.064 4 4 6 6 15 

IMH–W–Med–B ................................................................ 0.089 5 5 5 9 12 

IMH–W–Large–B * ............................................................ 0.028 0 0 0 0 6 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ............................................................ 0.018 0 0 0 0 7 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ............................................................ 0.010 0 0 0 0 6 

IMH–A–Small–B ............................................................... 0.467 2 5 8 8 15 

IMH–A–Large–B * ............................................................. 0.644 3 5 6 9 12 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ............................................................. 0.495 3 6 7 11 14 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ............................................................. 0.149 2 2 2 2 2 

RCU–Large–B * ................................................................ 0.368 4 4 4 8 10 

RCU–Large–B1 ................................................................ 0.343 4 4 4 8 10 

RCU–Large–B2 ................................................................ 0.026 4 4 4 4 7 

SCU–W–Large–B ............................................................. 0.004 7 14 18 23 23 

SCU–A–Small–B .............................................................. 0.150 5 12 16 21 24 

SCU–A–Large–B .............................................................. 0.102 6 14 19 23 23 

IMH–A–Small–C ............................................................... 0.071 3 5 8 8 12 

IMH–A–Large–C .............................................................. 0.044 4 4 7 7 14 

RCU–Small–C .................................................................. 0.031 3 6 10 10 16 

SCU–A–Small–C .............................................................. 0.145 4 7 10 10 16 

Total .......................................................................... 2.206 3 6 8 10 14 

* IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2.

Table V.38 presents energy savings at 

each TSL for each equipment class with 

the FFC adjustment. The NES increases 

from 0.081 quads at TSL 1 to 0.321 

quads at TSL 5. 

TABLE V.38—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS INCLUDING FULL-FUEL-CYCLE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN

2018–2047 

[Quads] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * ** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.010 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.011 

IMH–W–Large–B † ................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4736 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

73For automatic commercial ice makers, DOE is 

required to review standards at least every five 

years after the effective date of any amended 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(B)) If new 

standards are promulgated, EPCA requires DOE to 

provide manufacturers a minimum of 3 and a 

maximum of 5 years to comply with the standards. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(C)) In addition, for certain 

other types of commercial equipment that are not 

specified in 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(G), EPCA 

requires DOE to review its standards at least once 

every 6 years (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) and 6316(a)), 

and either a 3-year or a 5-year period after any new 

standard is promulgated before compliance is 

required. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4) and 6316(a)) As a 

result, DOE’s standards for automatic commercial 

ice makers can be expected to be in effect for 8 to 

10 years between compliance dates, and its 

standards governing certain other commercial 

equipment, the period is 9 to 11 years. A 9-year 

analysis was selected as representative of the time 

between standard revisions. 

TABLE V.38—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS INCLUDING FULL-FUEL-CYCLE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN

2018–2047—Continued 

[Quads] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * ** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.011 0.024 0.039 0.039 0.075 

IMH–A–Large–B † .................................................................................... 0.020 0.035 0.040 0.061 0.078

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................... 0.017 0.033 0.037 0.057 0.075

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................... 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004

RCU–Large–B † ....................................................................................... 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.030 0.038 

RCU–Large–B1 ........................................................................................ 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.029 0.037 

RCU–Large–B2 ........................................................................................ 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.008 0.019 0.026 0.033 0.037 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.006 0.015 0.020 0.024 0.024

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.009 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.007 

RCU–Small–C .......................................................................................... 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.005 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.007 0.011 0.016 0.016 0.024 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.081 0.136 0.179 0.229 0.321 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NES rounds to less than 0.001 quads 

** Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

† IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2.

Circular A–4 requires agencies to 

present analytical results, including 

separate schedules of the monetized 

benefits and costs that show the type 

and timing of benefits and costs. 

Circular A–4 also directs agencies to 

consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and 

costs. For this rulemaking, DOE 

undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9, 

rather than 30, years of product 

shipments. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.73 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA 

generally is not synchronized with the 

product lifetime, product manufacturing 

cycles or other factors specific to 

automatic commercial ice makers. Thus, 

this information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

results based on a 9-year analysis period 

are presented in Table V.39 . The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

equipment purchased in 2018 through 

2026. 

TABLE V.39—NATIONAL FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026 

[Quads] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * ** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 

IMH–W–Large–B † ................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0.003 0.007 0.012 0.012 0.022 

IMH–A–Large–B † .................................................................................... 0.006 0.011 0.012 0.018 0.023

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................... 0.005 0.010 0.011 0.017 0.022

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

RCU–Large–B † ....................................................................................... 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.012 

RCU–Large–B1 ........................................................................................ 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.011 

RCU–Large–B2 ........................................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.011 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4737 

TABLE V.39—NATIONAL FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026—Continued 

[Quads] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * ** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.007

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 

RCU–Small–C .......................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.007 

Total .................................................................................................. 0.024 0.041 0.054 0.069 0.097 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NES rounds to less than 0.001 quads. 

** Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

† IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2.

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to 

the Nation of the total savings for the 

customers that would result from 

potential standards at each TSL. In 

accordance with OMB guidelines on 

regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A–4, 

section E, September 17, 2003), DOE 

calculated NPV using both a 7-percent 

and a 3-percent real discount rate. The 

7-percent rate is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return on 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and 

reflects the returns on real estate and 

small business capital, including 

corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector, because recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return on 

capital to be near this rate. In addition, 

DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture 

the potential effects of amended 

standards on private consumption. This 

rate represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. It can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (i.e., 

yield on Treasury notes minus annual 

rate of change in the CPI), which has 

averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax 

basis for the last 30 years. 

Table V.40 and Table V.41 show the 

customer NPV results for each of the 

TSLs DOE considered for automatic 

commercial ice makers at both 7-percent 

and 3-percent discount rates, 

respectively. In each case, the impacts 

cover the expected lifetime of 

equipment purchased from 2018 

through 2047. Detailed NPV results are 

presented in chapter 10 of the final rule 

TSD. 

The NPV results at a 7-percent 

discount rate for TSL 5 were negative 

for 9 classes, and also for one of the 

typical size units of a large batch 

equipment class for which the class 

total was positive. In all cases the TSL 

5 NPV was significantly lower than the 

TSL 3 results. This is consistent with 

the LCC analysis results for TSL 5, 

which showed significant increase in 

LCC and significantly higher PBPs that 

were in some cases greater than the 

average equipment lifetimes. Efficiency 

levels for TSL 4 were chosen to 

correspond to the highest efficiency 

level with a positive NPV for all classes 

at a 7-percent discount rate. Similarly, 

the criteria for choice of efficiency 

levels for TSL 3, TSL 2, and TSL 1 were 

such that the NPV values for all the 

equipment classes show positive values. 

The criterion for TSL 3 was to select 

efficiency levels with the highest NPV at 

a 7-percent discount rate. Consequently, 

the total NPV for automatic commercial 

ice makers was highest for TSL 3, with 

a value of $0.430 billion (2013$) at a 7- 

percent discount rate. TSL 4 showed the 

second highest total NPV, with a value 

of $0.337 billion (2013$) at a 7-percent 

discount rate. TSL 1, TSL 2 and TSL 5 

have a total NPV lower than TSL 3 or 

4. 

TABLE V.40—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047 

[Billion 2013$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ................................................................................ 0.006 0.006 0.011 0.011 (0.049 ) 

IMH–W–Med–B .................................................................................. 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.006 (0.008 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B ** ............................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.002 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .............................................................................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.002 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .............................................................................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.000 ) 

IMH–A–Small–B ................................................................................. 0.017 0.017 0.036 0.036 (0.238 ) 

IMH–A–Large–B ** ............................................................................. 0.043 0.109 0.120 0.109 0.021 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ............................................................................... 0.043 0.109 0.119 0.107 0.020 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ............................................................................... (0.000 ) (0.000 ) 0.001 0.001 0.001 

RCU–Large–B ** ................................................................................ 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.035 0.007 

RCU–Large–B1 .................................................................................. 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.033 0.008 

RCU–Large–B2 .................................................................................. 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 (0.001 ) 

SCU–W–Large–B ............................................................................... 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.001 

SCU–A–Small–B ................................................................................ 0.016 0.037 0.076 0.068 (0.060 ) 

SCU–A–Large–B ................................................................................ 0.014 0.059 0.064 0.004 0.004 

IMH–A–Small–C ................................................................................. 0.006 0.009 0.014 0.014 (0.014 ) 

IMH–A–Large–C ................................................................................ 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.009 (0.001 ) 

RCU–Small–C .................................................................................... 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.008 (0.003 ) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.40—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047— 

Continued 

[Billion 2013$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

SCU–A–Small–C ................................................................................ 0.018 0.027 0.036 0.036 (0.062 ) 

Total ............................................................................................ 0.183 0.328 0.430 0.337 (0.406 ) 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NPV rounds to less than $0.001 (2013$). Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

** IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2. 

TABLE V.41—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASED IN 2018–2047 

[Billion 2013$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ................................................................................ 0.014 0.014 0.025 0.025 (0.074 ) 

IMH–W–Med–B .................................................................................. 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.016 (0.008 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B ** ............................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.003 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B1 .............................................................................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.003 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B2 .............................................................................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.000 ) 

IMH–A–Small–B ................................................................................. 0.039 0.046 0.092 0.092 (0.360 ) 

IMH–A–Large–B ** ............................................................................. 0.091 0.234 0.259 0.271 0.122 

IMH–A–Large–B1 ............................................................................... 0.090 0.233 0.254 0.266 0.117 

IMH–A–Large–B2 ............................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.005 

RCU–Large–B ** ................................................................................ 0.088 0.088 0.088 0.084 0.039 

RCU–Large–B1 .................................................................................. 0.084 0.084 0.084 0.080 0.039 

RCU–Large–B2 .................................................................................. 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 (0.001 ) 

SCU–W–Large–B ............................................................................... 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.002 

SCU–A–Small–B ................................................................................ 0.035 0.079 0.169 0.159 (0.075 ) 

SCU–A–Large–B ................................................................................ 0.030 0.127 0.138 0.031 0.031 

IMH–A–Small–C ................................................................................. 0.012 0.019 0.030 0.030 (0.022 ) 

IMH–A–Large–C ................................................................................ 0.011 0.011 0.019 0.019 0.001 

RCU–Small–C .................................................................................... 0.005 0.009 0.017 0.017 (0.002 ) 

SCU–A–Small–C ................................................................................ 0.038 0.057 0.076 0.076 (0.103 ) 

Total ............................................................................................ 0.389 0.712 0.942 0.822 (0.453 ) 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NPV rounds to less than $0.001 (2013$). Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

** IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2. 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analysis period 

are presented in Table V.42 and Table 

V.43. The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of equipment purchased in 

2018–2026. As mentioned previously, 

this information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology or decision 

criteria. 

TABLE V.42—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026 

[Billion 2013$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ................................................................................ 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.005 (0.030 ) 

IMH–W–Med–B .................................................................................. 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.003 (0.004 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B ................................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.001 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 ............................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.001 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ............................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.000 ) 

IMH–A–Small–B ................................................................................. 0.009 0.009 0.018 0.018 (0.137 ) 

IMH–A–Large–B ................................................................................. 0.021 0.051 0.057 0.036 (0.005 ) 

IMH–A–Large–B–1 ............................................................................. 0.021 0.052 0.057 0.036 (0.006 ) 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 ............................................................................. (0.000 ) (0.000 ) 0.001 0.001 0.001 

RCU–Large–B .................................................................................... 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.018 0.004 

RCU–Large–B–1 ................................................................................ 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.017 0.005 

RCU–Large–B–2 ................................................................................ 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 (0.001 ) 

SCU–W–Large–B ............................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 

SCU–A–Small–B ................................................................................ 0.008 0.018 0.036 0.032 (0.030 ) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4739 

TABLE V.42—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026—Continued 

[Billion 2013$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

SCU–A–Large–B ................................................................................ 0.007 0.028 0.030 0.001 0.001 

IMH–A–Small–C ................................................................................. 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.007 (0.007 ) 

IMH–A–Large–C ................................................................................ 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.005 (0.000 ) 

RCU–Small–C .................................................................................... 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.004 (0.001 ) 

SCU–A–Small–C ................................................................................ 0.009 0.013 0.018 0.018 (0.030 ) 

Total ............................................................................................ 0.090 0.158 0.207 0.147 (0.241 ) 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NPV rounds to less than $0.001 (2013$). Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

TABLE V.43—NET PRESENT VALUE AT A 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE FOR 9-YEAR ANALYSIS PERIOD FOR EQUIPMENT

PURCHASED IN 2018–2026 

[Billion 2013$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level * 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B .................................................................................... 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.009 (0.038 ) 

IMH–W–Med–B ...................................................................................... 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.006 (0.002 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B .................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.001 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B–1 ................................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.001 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B–2 ................................................................................ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (0.000 ) 

IMH–A–Small–B ..................................................................................... 0.014 0.017 0.035 0.035 (0.168 ) 

IMH–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0.033 0.081 0.090 0.067 0.016

IMH–A–Large–B–1 ................................................................................. 0.033 0.081 0.089 0.065 0.014 

IMH–A–Large–B–2 ................................................................................. 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 

RCU–Large–B ........................................................................................ 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.015 

RCU–Large–B–1 .................................................................................... 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.016 

RCU–Large–B–2 .................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 (0.000 ) 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................................................................... 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 

SCU–A–Small–B .................................................................................... 0.013 0.029 0.057 0.054 (0.029 ) 

SCU–A–Large–B ................................................................................... 0.011 0.043 0.047 0.010 0.010 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................................................................... 0.004 0.007 0.011 0.011 (0.008 ) 

IMH–A–Large–C .................................................................................... 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.001 

RCU–Small–C ........................................................................................ 0.002 0.003 0.006 0.006 (0.001 ) 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................................................................... 0.014 0.021 0.028 0.028 (0.037 ) 

Total ................................................................................................ 0.142 0.253 0.332 0.264 (0.241 ) 

* A value equal to 0.000 means the NPV rounds to less than $0.001 (2013$). Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

c. Water Savings 

One energy-saving design option for 

batch type ice makers had the additional 

benefit of reducing potable water usage 

for some types of batch type ice makers. 

The water savings are identified on 

Table V.44. DOE is not, as part of this 

rulemaking, establishing a potable water 

standard. The water savings identified 

through the analyses are products of the 

analysis of energy-saving design 

options. 

TABLE V.44—WATER SAVINGS

Equipment class 

Water savings by standard level * ** 

million gallons 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 761 761 1,733 1,733 1,733 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–W–Large–B ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 –5,424 

IMH–A–Large–B ...................................................................................... 0 12,501 12,501 11,733 11,733 

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................... 0 12,501 12,501 11,733 11,733

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

RCU–Large–B .......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

RCU–Large–B1 ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

RCU–Large–B2 ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4740 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.44—WATER SAVINGS—Continued 

Equipment class 

Water savings by standard level * ** 

million gallons 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 336 336 336 336 336 

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 0 0 13,580 13,580 13,580 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 0 9,388 9,388 9,388 9,388 

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

RCU–Small–C .......................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................. 1,097 22,987 37,539 36,771 31,347 

* A zero indicates no water usage reductions were identified. 

** IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B results are the sum of the results for the 2 typical units denoted by B1 and B2. 

d. Indirect Employment Impacts 

In addition to the direct impacts on 

manufacturing employment discussed 

in section IV.N, DOE develops general 

estimates of the indirect employment 

impacts of the new and amended 

standards on the economy. DOE expects 

amended energy conservation standards 

for automatic commercial ice makers to 

reduce energy bills for commercial 

customers and expects the resulting net 

savings to be redirected to other forms 

of economic activity. DOE also realizes 

that these shifts in spending and 

economic activity by automatic 

commercial ice maker owners could 

affect the demand for labor. Thus, 

indirect employment impacts may result 

from expenditures shifting between 

goods (the substitution effect) and 

changes in income and overall 

expenditure levels (the income effect) 

that occur due to the imposition of new 

and amended standards. These impacts 

may affect a variety of businesses not 

directly involved in the decision to 

make, operate, or pay the utility bills for 

automatic commercial ice makers. To 

estimate these indirect economic effects, 

DOE used an input/output model of the 

U.S. economy using U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (BEA), and BLS data (as 

described in section IV.J of this 

rulemaking; see chapter 16 of the final 

rule TSD for more details). 

Customers who purchase moreefficient equipment pay lower amounts 

towards utility bills, which results in 

job losses in the electric utilities sector. 

In this input/output model, the dollars 

saved on utility bills from more-efficient 

automatic commercial ice makers are 

spent in economic sectors that create 

more jobs than are lost in electric and 

water utilities sectors. Thus, the new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers are likely to slightly increase the 

net demand for labor in the economy. 

The net increase in jobs might be offset 

by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Neither the BLS data nor 

the input/output model used by DOE 

includes the quality of jobs. As shown 

in Table V.45, DOE estimates that net 

indirect employment impacts from new 

and amended automatic commercial ice 

makers standard are small relative to the 

national economy. 

TABLE V.45—NET SHORT-TERM

CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT

[Number of employees] 

Trial standard 

level 2018 2022 

1 .................... 18 to 21 ....... 104 to 107. 

2 .................... 31 to 38 ....... 196 to 204. 

3 .................... 41 to 52 ....... 263 to 276. 

4 .................... 41 to 63 ....... 315 to 340. 

5 .................... 4 to 82 ......... 376 to 464. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

In performing the engineering 

analysis, DOE considers design options 

that would not lessen the utility or 

performance of the individual classes of 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6313(d)(4)) As 

presented in the screening analysis 

(chapter 4 of the final rule TSD), DOE 

eliminates from consideration any 

design options that reduce the utility of 

the equipment. For this rulemaking, 

DOE did not consider TSLs for 

automatic commercial ice makers that 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

equipment. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from amended standards. It directs the 

Attorney General of the United States 

(Attorney General) to determine in 

writing the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 6313(d)(4)) To 

assist the Attorney General in making 

such a determination, DOE provided the 

DOJ with copies of this rule and the 

TSD for review. During MIA interviews, 

domestic manufacturers indicated that 

foreign manufacturers have begun to 

enter the automatic commercial ice 

maker industry, but not in significant 

numbers. Manufacturers also stated that 

consolidation has occurred among 

automatic commercial ice makers 

manufacturers in recent years. 

Interviewed manufacturers believe that 

these trends may continue in this 

market even in the absence of amended 

standards. 

More than one manufacturer 

suggested that where they already have 

overseas manufacturing capabilities, 

they would consider moving additional 

manufacturing to those facilities if they 

felt the need to offset a significant rise 

in materials costs. The Department 

acknowledges that to be competitive in 

the marketplace manufacturers must 

constantly re-examine their supply 

chains and manufacturing 

infrastructure. DOE does not believe 

however, that at the levels specified in 

this final rule, amended standards 

would result in domestic firms 

relocating significant portions of their 

domestic production capacity to other 

countries. The majority of automatic 

commercial ice makers are 

manufactured in the U.S. and the 

amended standards are at levels which 

are already met by a large portion of the 

product models being manufactured. 

The amended standards can largely be 

met using existing capital assets and 

during interviews, manufacturers in 

general indicated they would modify 

their existing facilities to comply with 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4741 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

An improvement in the energy 

efficiency of the equipment subject to 

this final rule is likely to improve the 

security of the Nation’s energy system 

by reducing overall demand for energy. 

Reduced electricity demand resulting 

from energy conservation may also 

improve the reliability of the electricity 

system. As a measure of this reduced 

demand, chapter 15 in the final rule 

TSD presents the estimated reduction in 

national generating capacity for the 

TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. 

Energy savings from new and 

amended standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers could also 

produce environmental benefits in the 

form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and GHGs associated with 

electricity production. Table V.46 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

CO2, NOX, Hg, N2O, CH4 and SO2

emissions reductions projected to result 

from the TSLs considered in this rule. 

The table includes both power sector 

emissions and upstream emissions. The 

upstream emissions were calculated 

using the multipliers discussed in 

section IV.K. DOE reports annual 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 13 of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.46—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS

[Cumulative for equipment purchased in 2018–2047] 

TSL 

1 2 3 4 5 

Power Sector and Site Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .......................................................................... 4.68 7.87 10.38 13.25 18.62 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................... 3.71 6.23 8.22 10.50 14.75 

Hg (tons) .................................................................................................. 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................................ 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.25 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................................ 0.44 0.73 0.97 1.24 1.74 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................................ 4.13 6.95 9.17 11.70 16.45 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .......................................................................... 0.25 0.42 0.56 0.72 1.00 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................... 3.59 6.03 7.96 10.17 14.29 

Hg (tons) .................................................................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................................ 20.91 35.15 46.40 59.23 83.24 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................................ 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.18 

Total Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) .......................................................................... 4.93 8.29 10.94 13.97 19.63 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................... 7.30 12.26 16.19 20.67 29.04 

Hg (tons) .................................................................................................. 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................................................................ 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.26 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................................................................ 21.35 35.89 47.37 60.47 84.97 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................................................................ 4.18 7.02 9.27 11.83 16.62 

As part of the analysis for this final 

rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits 

likely to result from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that were 

estimated for each of the TSLs 

considered. As discussed in section 

IV.L, DOE used values for the SCC 

developed by an interagency process. 

The interagency group selected four sets 

of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three sets are based on the 

average SCC from three integrated 

assessment models, at discount rates of 

2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. 

The fourth set, which represents the 

95th-percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, is included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. The four SCC values 

for CO2 emissions reductions in 2015, 

expressed in 2013$, are $12/ton, $40.5/ 

ton, $62.4/ton, and $119.0/ton. These 

values for later years are higher due to 

increasing emissions-related costs as the 

magnitude of projected climate change 

is expected to increase. 

Table V.47 presents the global value 

of CO2 emissions reductions at each 

TSL. DOE calculated domestic values as 

a range from 7 percent to 23 percent of 

the global values, and these results are 

presented in chapter 14 of the final rule 

TSD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.47—GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC

COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

TSL 

SCC scenario * 

5% Discount 

rate, average 

3% Discount 

rate, average 

2.5% Discount 

rate, average 

3% Discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

million 2013$ 

Power Sector and Site Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 34.5 154.3 243.8 476.2 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 57.9 259.4 409.9 800.5 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 76.4 342.3 541.0 1,056.6 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 97.6 437.0 690.6 1,348.9 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 137.1 614.1 970.5 1,895.5 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 1.8 8.2 13.0 25.4 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 3.0 13.8 21.9 42.7 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 4.0 18.2 28.8 56.3 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 5.1 23.3 36.8 71.9 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 7.2 32.7 51.8 101.0 

Total Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 36.3 162.5 256.8 501.6 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 61.0 273.2 431.7 843.1 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 80.5 360.6 569.8 1,112.9 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 102.7 460.3 727.5 1,420.8 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 144.3 646.8 1,022.3 1,996.5 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12, $40.5, $62.4, and $119.0 per metric ton (2013$). 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this rulemaking on 

reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 

change. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this final rule the most recent values 

and analyses resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

emission reductions anticipated to 

result from the new and amended 

standards for the automatic commercial 

ice makers. The dollar-per-ton values 

that DOE used are discussed in section 

IV.L. Table V.48 presents the present 

value of cumulative NOX emissions 

reductions for each TSL calculated 

using the average dollar-per-ton values 

and 7-percent and 3-percent discount 

rates. 

TABLE V.48—PRESENT VALUE OF

NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR

POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

TSL 

3% 

Discount 

rate 

7% 

Discount 

rate 

million 2013$ 

Power Sector and Site Emissions * 

1 ................................ 5.6 2.9 

2 ................................ 9.4 4.9 

3 ................................ 12.4 6.5 

4 ................................ 15.8 8.2 

5 ................................ 22.2 11.6 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ................................ 5.2 2.5 

2 ................................ 8.7 4.3 

3 ................................ 11.4 5.6 

4 ................................ 14.6 7.2 

5 ................................ 20.5 10.1 

Total Emissions 

1 ................................ 10.7 5.4 

TABLE V.48—PRESENT VALUE OF

NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR

POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS— 

Continued 

TSL 

3% 

Discount 

rate 

7% 

Discount 

rate 

million 2013$ 

2 ................................ 18.0 9.2 

3 ................................ 23.8 12.1 

4 ................................ 30.4 15.4 

5 ................................ 42.7 21.7 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emission reductions can 

be viewed as a complement to the NPV 

of the customer savings calculated for 

each TSL considered in this rulemaking. 

Table V.49 presents the NPV values that 

result from adding the estimates of the 

potential economic benefits resulting 

from reduced CO2 and NOX emissions 

in each of four valuation scenarios to 

the NPV of consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking, at both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent discount rate. The CO2 values 

used in the table correspond to the four 

scenarios for the valuation of CO2

emission reductions presented in 

section IV.L. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4743 

TABLE V.49—AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED

WITH NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with: 

SCC Value of 

$12/metric ton 

CO2 * and 

medium value 

for NOX * 

SCC Value of 

$40.5/metric 

ton CO2 * and 

medium value 

for NOX * 

SCC Value of 

$62.4/metric 

ton CO2 * and 

medium value 

for NOX * 

SCC Value of 

$119.0/metric 

ton CO2 * and 

medium value 

for NOX * 

billion 2013$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.436 0.563 0.657 0.902 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.791 1.004 1.162 1.574 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 1.046 1.326 1.536 2.079 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.955 1.313 1.580 2.273 

5 ....................................................................................................................... (0.266) 0.237 0.612 1.587 

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with: 

TSL SCC Value of 

$12/metric ton 

CO2 * and 

medium value 

for NOX * 

SCC Value of 

$40.5/metric 

ton CO2 * and 

medium value 

for NOX * 

SCC Value of 

$62.4/metric 

ton CO2 * and 

medium value 

for NOX * 

SCC Value of 

$119.0/metric 

ton CO2 * and 

medium value 

for NOX * 

billion 2013$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.225 0.351 0.445 0.690 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.398 0.611 0.769 1.181 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.523 0.803 1.012 1.555 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.455 0.813 1.080 1.773 

5 ....................................................................................................................... (0.240) 0.263 0.638 1.613 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2013$. The present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. For NOX emissions, each case uses the medium value, which corresponds to $2,684 per ton. 

Although adding the value of 

customer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, the following should be 

considered. First, the national customer 

savings are domestic U.S. customer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the values 

of emission reductions are based on 

estimates of marginal social costs, 

which, in the case of CO2, are based on 

a global value. Second, the assessments 

of customer operating cost savings and 

emission-related benefits are performed 

with quite different time frames for 

analysis. For automatic commercial ice 

makers, the present value of national 

customer savings is measured for the 

lifetime of units shipped from 2018 

through 2047. The SCC values, on the 

other hand, reflect the present value of 

future climate-related impacts resulting 

from the emission of one metric ton of 

CO2 in each year. Because of the long 

residence time of CO2 in the 

atmosphere, these impacts continue 

well beyond 2100. 

7. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

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

DOE considered LCC impacts on 

identifiable groups of customers, such 

as customers of different business types, 

who may be disproportionately affected 

by any new or amended national energy 

conservation standard level. The LCC 

subgroup impacts are discussed in 

section V.B.1.b and in final rule TSD 

chapter 11. DOE also considered the 

reduction in generation capacity that 

could result from the imposition of any 

new or amended national energy 

conservation standard level. Electric 

utility impacts are presented in final 

rule TSD chapter 15. 

C. Conclusions/Proposed Standard 

Any new or amended energy 

conservation standard for any type (or 

class) of covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

determining whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

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

6313(d)(4)) The new or amended 

standard must also result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) and 6313(d)(4)) 

DOE considered the impacts of 

potential standards at each TSL, 

beginning with the maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level met the 

evaluation criteria. If the max-tech level 

was not justified, DOE then considered 

the next most-efficient level and 

undertook the same evaluation until it 

reached the highest efficiency level that 

is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader in understanding 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables are presented to summarize the 

quantitative analytical results for each 

TSL, based on the assumptions and 

methodology discussed herein. The 

efficiency levels contained in each TSL 

are described in section V.A. In addition 

to the quantitative results presented in 

the tables below, DOE also considers 

other burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification including the 

effect of technological feasibility, 

manufacturer costs, and impacts on 

competition on the economic results 

presented. Table V.50, Table V.51, Table 

V.52 and Table V.53 present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. Results in Table 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

V.50 through Table V.53 are impacts 

from equipment purchased in the period 

from 2018 through 2047. In addition to 

the quantitative results presented in the 

tables, DOE also considers other 

burdens and benefits that affect 

economic justification of certain 

customer subgroups that are 

disproportionately affected by the 

proposed standards. Section V.B.1.b 

presents the estimated impacts of each 

TSL for these subgroups. 

TABLE V.50—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS * 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Cumulative National Energy Savings 2018 through 2047 

Quads 

Undiscounted values .................... 0.081 ..................... 0.136 ..................... 0.179 ..................... 0.229 ..................... 0.321. 

Cumulative National Water Savings 2018 through 2047 

billion gallons 

Undiscounted values .................... 1.0 ......................... 23.0 ....................... 37.5 ....................... 36.8 ....................... 31.3. 

Cumulative NPV of Customer Benefits 2018 through 2047 

billion 2013$ 

3% discount rate ........................... 0.389 ..................... 0.712 ..................... 0.942 ..................... 0.822 ..................... (0.453). 

7% discount rate ........................... 0.183 ..................... 0.328 ..................... 0.430 ..................... 0.337 ..................... (0.406). 

Industry Impacts 

Change in Industry NPV (2013$ 

million).

(7.5) to (6.6) .......... (11.2) to (9.3) ........ (15.1) to (12.1) ...... (18.6) to (12.3) ...... (30.0) to (11.8). 

Change in Industry NPV (%) ........ (6.2) to (5.4) .......... (9.2) to (7.7) .......... (12.5) to (10.0) ...... (15.3) to (10.1) ...... (24.6) to (9.7). 

Cumulative Emissions Reductions 2018 through 2047 ** 

CO2 (MMt) ..................................... 4.93 ....................... 8.29 ....................... 10.94 ..................... 13.97 ..................... 19.63. 

NOX (kt) ........................................ 7.30 ....................... 12.26 ..................... 16.19 ..................... 20.67 ..................... 29.04. 

Hg (t) ............................................. 0.01 ....................... 0.02 ....................... 0.03 ....................... 0.04 ....................... 0.05. 

N2O (kt) ......................................... 0.06 ....................... 0.11 ....................... 0.14 ....................... 0.18 ....................... 0.26. 

N2O (kt CO2eq) ............................. 17.14 ..................... 28.81 ..................... 38.03 ..................... 48.55 ..................... 68.23. 

CH4 (kt) ......................................... 21.35 ..................... 35.89 ..................... 47.37 ..................... 60.47 ..................... 84.97. 

CH4 (kt CO2eq) ............................. 597.78 ................... 1004.79 ................. 1326.27 ................. 1693.16 ................. 2379.30. 

SO2 (kt) ......................................... 4.18 ....................... 7.02 ....................... 9.27 ....................... 11.83 ..................... 16.62. 

Monetary Value of Cumulative Emissions Reductions 2018 through 2047 † 

CO2 (2013$ billion) ....................... 0.036 to 0.502 ....... 0.061 to 0.843 ....... 0.080 to 1.113 ....... 0.103 to 1.421 ....... 0.144 to 1.997. 

NOX—3% discount rate (2013$ 

million).

10.7 ....................... 18.0 ....................... 23.8 ....................... 30.4 ....................... 42.7. 

NOX—7% discount rate (2013$ 

million).

5.4 ......................... 9.2 ......................... 12.1 ....................... 15.4 ....................... 21.7. 

Employment Impacts 

Net Change in Indirect Domestic 

Jobs by 2022.

104 to 107 ............. 196 to 204 ............. 263 to 276 ............. 315 to 340 ............. 376 to 464. 

* Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

** ‘‘MMt’’ stands for million metric tons; ‘‘kt’’ stands for kilotons; ‘‘t’’ stands for tons. CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same 

global warming potential (GWP). 

† Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. Economic value of 

NOX reductions is based on estimates at $2,684/ton. 

TABLE V.51—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: MEAN LCC SAVINGS

[2013$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B .................................................................................... $175 $175 $214 $214 ($534 ) 

IMH–W–Med–B ...................................................................................... $308 $308 $308 $165 ($63 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B * ................................................................................. NA NA NA NA ($172 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................. NA NA NA NA ($200 ) 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................. NA NA NA NA ($80 ) 

IMH–A–Small–B ..................................................................................... $136 $72 $77 $77 ($393 ) 

IMH–A–Large–B * .................................................................................. $382 $501 $361 $265 $55 

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................. $439 $580 $407 $294 $45 

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................. $76 $76 $110 $110 $110 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4745 

TABLE V.51—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: MEAN LCC SAVINGS— 

Continued 

[2013$] 

Equipment class 

Standard level 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

RCU–Large–B * ...................................................................................... $748 $748 $748 $418 $144 

RCU–Large–B1 ...................................................................................... $743 $743 $743 $391 $161 

RCU–Large–B2 ...................................................................................... $820 $820 $820 $820 ($109 ) 

SCU–W–Large–B ................................................................................... $444 $613 $550 $192 $192 

SCU–A–Small–B .................................................................................... $110 $161 $281 $230 ($145 ) 

SCU–A–Large–B ................................................................................... $163 $400 $439 $71 $71 

IMH–A–Small–C ..................................................................................... $245 $292 $313 $313 ($165 ) 

IMH–A–Large–C .................................................................................... $539 $539 $626 $626 $28 

RCU–Small–C ........................................................................................ $498 $448 $505 $505 ($73 ) 

SCU–A–Small–C .................................................................................... $224 $278 $290 $290 ($268 ) 

* LCC results for IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B are a weighted average of the two sub-equipment class level typical 

units shown on the table, using weights provided in TSD chapter 7. 

TABLE V.52—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS TSLS: MEDIAN PAYBACK PERIOD

Equipment class 

Standard level 

years 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B ...................................................................................... 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.7 13.4 

IMH–W–Med–B ........................................................................................ 2.1 2.1 2.1 5.0 7.6 

IMH–W–Large–B* .................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 10.6 

IMH–W–Large–B1 ................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 11.1 

IMH–W–Large–B2 ................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 8.9 

IMH–A–Small–B ....................................................................................... 3.4 4.8 4.7 4.7 11.9 

IMH–A–Large–B* ..................................................................................... 2.2 2.4 2.3 3.9 5.6 

IMH–A–Large–B1 .................................................................................... 1.2 1.5 1.5 3.4 5.4 

IMH–A–Large–B2 .................................................................................... 7.4 7.4 6.9 6.9 6.9 

RCU–Large–B* ........................................................................................ 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.3 5.0 

RCU–Large–B1 ........................................................................................ 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.4 4.9 

RCU–Large–B2 ........................................................................................ 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 

SCU–W–Large–B ..................................................................................... 1.1 1.6 1.8 5.1 5.1 

SCU–A–Small–B ...................................................................................... 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.5 8.9 

SCU–A–Large–B ..................................................................................... 1.8 1.6 2.1 6.5 6.5 

IMH–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 8.8 

IMH–A–Large–C ...................................................................................... 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 5.9 

RCU–Small–C .......................................................................................... 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.8 

SCU–A–Small–C ...................................................................................... 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.5 11.4 

* PBP results for IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B are weighted averages of the results for the two sub-equipment class 

level typical units, using weights provided in TSD chapter 7. 

TABLE V.53—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER TSLS: DISTRIBUTION OF CUSTOMER LCC 

IMPACTS

Category 

Standard Level 

percentage of customers (%) 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Small–B 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 1 1 96 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 63 63 47 47 0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 37 37 52 52 4 

IMH–W–Med–B 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 28 65 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 44 44 44 24 9 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 56 56 56 47 26 

IMH–W–Large–B * 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 67 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 13 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. NA NA NA NA 20 

IMH–W–Large–B1 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 70 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 13 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. NA NA NA NA 17 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4746 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.53—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER TSLS: DISTRIBUTION OF CUSTOMER LCC 

IMPACTS—Continued 

Category 

Standard Level 

percentage of customers (%) 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

IMH–W–Large–B2 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 59 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 13 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. NA NA NA NA 29 

IMH–A–Small–B 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 1 21 21 21 95 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 76 47 0 0 0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 22 32 79 79 5 

IMH–A–Large–B * 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 1 1 2 31 53 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 69 45 12 12 10 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 30 53 86 57 37 

IMH–A–Large–B1 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 35 61 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 66 38 3 3 0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 34 62 97 63 39 

IMH–A–Large–B2 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 9 9 10 10 10 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 83 83 61 61 61 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 8 8 29 29 29 

RCU–Large–B * 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 23 55 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 56 56 56 22 2 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 44 44 44 55 42 

RCU–Large–B1 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 25 55 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 56 56 56 20 1 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 44 44 44 55 44 

RCU–Large–B2 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 57 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 56 56 56 56 20 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 43 43 43 43 23 

SCU–W–Large–B 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 44 44 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 28 28 5 0 0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 72 72 94 56 56 

SCU–A–Small–B 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 1 1 16 77 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 48 20 12 0 0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 52 79 87 84 23 

SCU–A–Large–B 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 54 54 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 37 1 1 0 0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 63 99 99 46 46 

IMH–A–Small–C 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 68 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 69 58 39 39 14 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 31 42 61 61 18 

IMH–A–Large–C 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 54 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 57 57 35 35 9 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 43 43 65 65 37 

RCU–Small–C 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 64 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 72 44 11 11 6 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 28 55 89 89 31 

SCU–A–Small–C 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 0 0 1 1 86 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 56 47 32 32 0 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 44 53 67 67 14 

Average of Equipment Types ** 

Net Cost (%) ..................................................................................... 1 7 6 20 75 

No Impact (%) ................................................................................... 62 40 16 12 3 

Net Benefit (%) ................................................................................. 37 53 77 68 22 

* LCC results for IMH–W–Large–B, IMH–A–Large–B, and RCU–Large–B are a weighted average of the two sub-equipment class level typical 

units shown on the table. 

** Average of equipment types created by weighting the class results by 2018 shipment estimates. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4747 

74Sanstad, A. Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_

theory.pdf 

75For this section of the final rule, the discussion 

is limited to results for full equipment classes. 

Thus, for the large equipment classes for which 

DOE analyzed 2 typical unit sizes, this discussion 

focuses on the weighted average or totals of the two 

typical units. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade-off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. There is evidence that 

consumers undervalue future energy 

savings as a result of (1) a lack of 

information; (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases (e.g., an inefficient 

ventilation fan in a new building or the 

delayed replacement of a water pump); 

(4) excessive focus on the short term, in 

the form of inconsistent weighting of 

future energy cost savings relative to 

available returns on other investments; 

(5) computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of 

relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence 

in incentives (e.g., renter versus 

building owner, builder versus home 

buyer). Other literature indicates that 

with less than perfect foresight and a 

high degree of uncertainty about the 

future, consumers may trade off these 

types of investments at a higher-thanexpected rate between current 

consumption and uncertain future 

energy cost savings. This 

undervaluation suggests that regulation 

that promotes energy efficiency can 

produce significant net private gains (as 

well as producing social gains by, for 

example, reducing pollution). 

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an amended 

energy conservation standard, DOE is 

committed to developing a framework 

that can support empirical quantitative 

tools for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

standards. DOE has posted a paper that 

discusses the issue of consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance energy efficiency 

standards, and potential enhancements 

to the methodology by which these 

impacts are defined and estimated in 

the regulatory process.74 DOE welcomes 

comments on how to more fully assess 

the potential impact of energy 

conservation standards on consumer 

choice and methods to quantify this 

impact in its regulatory analysis. 

TSL 5 corresponds to the max-tech 

level for all the equipment classes and 

offers the potential for the highest 

cumulative energy savings through the 

analysis period from 2018 to 2047. The 

estimated energy savings from TSL 5 is 

0.321 quads of energy. Because one 

energy-saving design option reduces 

potable water usage, potential savings 

are estimated to be 31 billion gallons, 

although such savings should not be 

construed to be the result of a potable 

water standard. DOE projects a negative 

NPV for customers valued at $0.406 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate. 

Estimated emissions reductions are 19.6 

MMt of CO2, up to 29.0 kt of NOX and 

0.05 tons of Hg. The CO2 emissions have 

a value of up to $2.0 billion and the 

NOX emissions have a value of $21.7 

million at a 7-percent discount rate. 

For TSL 5, the mean LCC savings for 

five equipment classes are positive, 

implying a decrease in LCC, with the 

decrease ranging from $28 for the IMH– 

A–Large–C equipment class to $192 for 

the SCU–W–Large–B equipment class.75

The results shown on Table V.53 

indicates a large fraction of customers 

would experience net LCC increases 

(i.e., LCC costs rather than savings) from 

adoption of TSL 5, with 44 to 96 percent 

of customers experiencing net LCC 

increases. As shown on Table V.52, 

customers would experience payback 

periods of 5 years or longer in all 

equipment classes, and in many cases 

customers would experience payback 

periods exceeding the estimated 8.5 year 

equipment lifetime. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $30.0 

million to a decrease of $11.8 million, 

depending on the chosen manufacturer 

markup scenario. The upper bound is 

considered optimistic by industry 

because it assumes manufacturers could 

pass on all compliance costs as price 

increases to their customers. DOE 

recognizes the risk of negative impacts 

if manufacturers’ expectations 

concerning reduced profit margins are 

realized. If the lower bound of the range 

of impacts is reached, TSL 5 could 

result in a net loss of up to 24.6 percent 

in INPV for the ACIM industry. 

DOE estimates that approximately 84 

percent of all batch commercial ice 

makers and 78 percent of all continuous 

commercial ice makers on the market 

will require redesign to meet standards 

at TSL 5. DOE expects industry 

conversion costs of $44.1 million. Also 

of concern, for five equipment classes, 

there is only 1 manufacturer with 

products that could currently meet this 

standard. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis results and weighing the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 5, DOE 

finds that at TSL 5, the benefits to the 

nation in the form of energy savings and 

emissions reductions are outweighed by 

a decrease of $0.406 billion in customer 

NPV and a decrease of up to 24.6 

percent in INPV. Additionally, the 

majority of individual customers 

purchasing automatic commercial ice 

makers built to TSL 5 standards 

experience negative life-cycle cost 

savings, with over 90 percent of 

customers of 2 equipment classes 

experiencing negative life-cycle cost 

savings. After weighing the burdens of 

TSL 5 against the benefits, DOE finds 

TSL 5 not to be economically justified. 

DOE does not propose to adopt TSL 5 

in this rulemaking. 

TSL 4, the next highest efficiency 

level, corresponds to the highest 

efficiency level with a positive NPV at 

a 7-percent discount rate for all 

equipment classes. The estimated 

energy savings from 2018 to 2047 are 

0.229 quads of energy—an amount DOE 

deems significant. Because one energysaving design option reduces potable 

water usage, potential water savings are 

estimated to be 37 billion gallons, 

although such savings should not be 

construed to be the result of a potable 

water standard. At TSL 4, DOE projects 

an increase in customer NPV of $0.337 

billion (2013$) at a 7-percent discount 

rate; estimated emissions reductions of 

14.0 MMt of CO2, 20.7 kt of NOx, and 

0.04 tons of Hg. The monetary value for 

CO2 was estimated to be up to $1.4 

billion. The monetary value for NOX

was estimated to be $15.4 million at a 

7-percent discount rate. 

At TSL 4, the mean LCC savings are 

positive for all equipment classes. As 

shown on Table V.51, mean LCC savings 

vary from $71 for SCU–A–Large–B to 

$626 for IMH–A–Large–C, which 

implies that, on average, customers will 

experience an LCC benefit. As shown on 

Table V.53, for 7 of the 13 classes, some 

fraction of the customers will 

experience net costs, while for 5 classes, 

1 percent or less will experience net 

costs. Customers in 3 classes would 

experience net LCC costs of 30 percent 

or more, with the percentage ranging up 

to 54 percent for one equipment class. 

Median payback periods range from 0.7 

years up to 6.5 years. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $18.6 

million to a decrease of $12.3 million. 

If the lower bound of the range of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4748 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

impacts is reached, TSL 4 could result 

in a net loss of up to 15.3 percent in 

INPV for manufacturers. 

DOE estimates that approximately 66 

percent of all batch commercial ice 

makers and 55 percent of all continuous 

commercial ice makers on the market 

will require redesign to meet standards 

at TSL 4. At this TSL DOE expects 

industry conversion costs to total $30.0 

million. Additionally, for four 

equipment classes, there is only 1 

manufacturer with products that 

currently meet the standard. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis results and weighing the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 4, DOE 

finds that at TSL 4, the benefits to the 

nation in the form of energy savings and 

emissions reductions plus an increase of 

$0.337 billion in customer NPV are 

outweighed by a decrease of up to 15.3 

percent in INPV and issues regarding 

availability of product from multiple 

manufacturers in some product classes. 

After weighing the burdens of TSL 4 

against the benefits, DOE finds TSL 4 

not to be economically justified. DOE 

does not propose to adopt TSL 4 in this 

rule. 

At TSL 3, the next highest efficiency 

level, estimated energy savings from 

2018 through 2047 are 0.179 quads of 

primary energy—an amount DOE 

considers significant. Because one 

energy-saving design option reduces 

potable water usage, potential water 

savings are estimated to be 37 billion 

gallons, although such savings should 

not be construed to be the result of a 

potable water standard. TSL 3 was 

defined as the set of efficiencies with 

the highest NPV for each analyzed 

equipment class. At TSL 3, DOE projects 

an increase in customer NPV of $0.430 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate, and 

an increase of $0.942 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate. Estimated 

emissions reductions are 10.9 MMt of 

CO2, up to 16.2 kt of NOX and 0.03 tons 

of Hg at TSL 3. The monetary value of 

the CO2 emissions reductions was 

estimated to be up to $1.1 billion at TSL 

3. The monetary value of the NOX

emission reductions was estimated to be 

$12.1 million at a 7-percent discount 

rate. 

At TSL 3, nearly all customers for all 

equipment classes are shown to 

experience positive LCC savings. As 

shown on Table V.53 Table V.53, the 

percent of customers experiencing a net 

cost is 2 percent or less in 12 of 13 

classes, with IMH–A–Small–B being the 

exception with 21 percent of customers 

experiencing a net cost. The payback 

period for IMH–A–Small–B is 4.7 years, 

while for all other equipment classes the 

median payback periods are 3 years or 

less. LCC savings range from $77 for 

IMH–A–Small–B to $748 for RCU– 

Large–B. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $15.1 

million to a decrease of $12.1 million. 

If the lower bound of the range of 

impacts is reached, TSL 3 could result 

in a net loss of up to 12.5 percent in 

INPV for manufacturers. 

DOE estimates that approximately 51 

percent of all batch commercial ice 

makers and 55 percent of all continuous 

commercial ice makers on the market 

will require redesign to meet standards 

at TSL 3. At TSL 3, DOE expects 

industry conversion costs to total $25.1 

million. There are multiple 

manufacturers with product that could 

meet this standard at all analyzed 

equipment classes. 

At TSL 3, the monetized CO2

emissions reduction values range from 

$0.080 to $1.113 billion. The mid-range 

value used by DOE to calculate total net 

benefits is the monetized CO2 emissions 

reduction at $40.5 per ton in 2013$, 

which for TSL 3, is $0.361 billion. The 

monetized NOX emissions reductions 

calculated at an intermediate value of 

$2,684 per ton in 2013$ are $12.1 

million at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$23.8 million at a 3-percent rate. These 

monetized emissions reduction values 

were added to the customer NPV at 3- 

percent and 7-percent discount rates to 

obtain values of $1.326 billion and 

0.803 billion, respectively, at TSL 3. 

Approximately 94 percent of 

customers are expected to experience 

net benefits (or no impact) from 

equipment built to TSL 3 levels. The 

payback periods for TSL 3 are expected 

to be 3 years or less for all but the IMH– 

A–Small–B. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis results and weighing the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 3, DOE 

concludes that setting the standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers at TSL 

3 will offer the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and will result in 

significant energy savings. Therefore, 

DOE today is adopting standards at TSL 

3 for automatic commercial ice makers. 

TSL 3 is technologically feasible 

because the technologies required to 

achieve these levels already exist in the 

current market and are available from 

multiple manufacturers. TSL 3 is 

economically justified because the 

benefits to the nation in the form of 

energy savings, customer NPV at 3 

percent and at 7 percent, and emissions 

reductions outweigh the costs 

associated with reduced INPV and 

potential effects of reduced 

manufacturing capacity. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that these 

standards address are as follows: 

(1) Insufficient information and the 

high costs of gathering and analyzing 

relevant information leads some 

customers to miss opportunities to make 

cost-effective investments in energy 

efficiency. 

(2) In some cases the benefits of more 

efficient equipment are not realized due 

to misaligned incentives between 

purchasers and users. An example of 

such a case is when the equipment 

purchase decision is made by a building 

contractor or building owner who does 

not pay the energy costs. 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of automatic commercial ice 

makers that are not captured by the 

users of such equipment. These benefits 

include externalities related to public 

health, environmental protection and 

national security that are not reflected 

in energy prices, such as reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases that impact human 

health and global warming. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. DOE presented 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB 

for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA), and has included 

these documents in the rulemaking 

record. The assessments prepared 

pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can 

be found in the technical support 

document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011) EO 13563 is supplemental 

to and explicitly reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review established 

in Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are required 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4749 

76 ‘‘AHRI Certification Directory.’’ AHRI 

Certification Directory. AHRI. (Available at: 

https://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/

home.aspx) (Last accessed October 10, 2011). See 

www.ahridirectory.org/ahriDirectory/pages/

home.aspx. 

77 ‘‘Dynamic Small Business Search.’’ SBA. 

(Available at: See http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/

dsp_dsbs.cfm) (Last accessed October 12, 2011). 

78 ‘‘D&B|Business Information|Get Credit 

Reports|888 480–6007.’’. Dun & Bradstreet 

(Available at: www.dnb.com) (Last accessed October 

10, 2011). See www.dnb.com/. 

79 ‘‘Hoovers|Company Information|Industry 

Information|Lists.’’ D&B (2013) (Available at: See 

http://www.hoovers.com/) (Last accessed December 

12, 2012). 

by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) 

Propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs (recognizing 

that some benefits and costs are difficult 

to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to 

impose the least burden on society, 

consistent with obtaining regulatory 

objectives, taking into account, among 

other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative 

regulations; (3) select, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

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

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that this final rule is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any rule that by law must be 

proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 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). 

For manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has set a 

size threshold, which defines those 

entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ 

for the purposes of the statute. DOE 

used the SBA’s small business size 

standards to determine whether any 

small entities would be subject to the 

requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 

30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended by 65 

FR 53533, 53544 (September 5, 2000) 

and 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 http:// 

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

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturing 

is classified under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing,’’ which includes icemaking machinery manufacturing. The 

SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees 

or less for an entity to be considered as 

a small business for this category. Based 

on this threshold, DOE present the 

following FRFA analysis: 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

During its market survey, DOE used 

available public information to identify 

potential small manufacturers. DOE’s 

research involved industry trade 

association membership directories 

(including AHRI), public databases (e.g., 

AHRI Directory,76 the SBA Database 77), 

individual company Web sites, and 

market research tools (e.g., Dunn and 

Bradstreet reports 78 and Hoovers 

reports 79) to create a list of companies 

that manufacture or sell products 

covered by this rulemaking. DOE also 

asked stakeholders and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any other small manufacturers during 

manufacturer interviews and at DOE 

public meetings. DOE reviewed publicly 

available data and contacted select 

companies on its list, as necessary, to 

determine whether they met the SBA’s 

definition of a small business 

manufacturer of covered automatic 

commercial ice makers. DOE screened 

out companies that do not offer 

products covered by this rulemaking, do 

not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned. 

DOE identified 16 manufacturers of 

automatic commercial ice makers. 

Seven of those are small businesses 

manufacturers operating in the United 

States. DOE contacted each of these 

companies, but only one accepted the 

invitation to participate in a 

confidential manufacturer impact 

analysis interview with DOE 

contractors. 

In establishing today’s standard 

levels, DOE has carefully considered the 

impacts on small manufacturers when 

establishing the standards for this 

industry. DOE’s review of the industry 

suggests that the five of the seven small 

manufacturers identified specialize in 

industrial higher capacity ‘‘tube’’, 

‘‘flake’’ or ‘‘cracked’’ ice machines. 

Industry literature indicates that these 

types of ice makers are typically 

designed to produce 2,000–40,000 lb/

day of ice, with some designs going as 

low as 1,000 lb/day. Only at the lowest 

end of the tube, flake, and cracked ice 

platforms, typically 2,000 and 4,000 lb/ 

day, do these manufacturers have 

products within the scope of this 

rulemaking. Based on product listings 

from manufacturer Web sites, DOE 

estimates that approximately 15% of the 

models produced by these five 

manufacturers are covered product 

under today’s rule. 

Of the remaining two small 

manufacturers, one exclusively 

produces continuous ice makers, and 

one exclusively produces gourmet, large 

cube, ice makers. Based on publically 

available information, DOE believes that 

approximately two-thirds of all the 

models made by the manufacturer of 

continuous machines already meet the 

standard, positioning it well compared 

to an industry-at-large compliance rate 

of approximately 50 percent. 

DOE estimates that 10 percent of the 

models made by the manufacturer of 

gourmet, large cube machines already 

meet the standard. The low percentage 

indicates that this manufacturer may be 

disproportionately affected by the 

selected standard level, but as discussed 

in section IV.B.1.f, DOE does not have 

nor did it receive in response to requests 

for comments sufficient specific 

information to evaluate whether larger 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4750 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

80 Koeller, John, P.E., and Herman Hoffman, P.E. 

A Report on Potential Best Management Practices. 

Rep. The California Urban Water Conservation 

Council, n.d. Web. 19 May 2014. 

ice has specific consumer utility, nor to 

allow separate evaluation for such 

equipment of costs and benefits 

associated with achieving the efficiency 

levels considered in the rulemaking. In 

the absence of information, DOE cannot 

conclude that this type of ice has unique 

consumer utility justifying 

consideration of separate equipment 

classes. DOE notes that manufacturers of 

this equipment have the option seeking 

exception relief pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 

7194 from DOE’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals. 

Based on a 2008 study by Koeller & 

Company,80 DOE understands that the 

ACIM market is dominated by four 

manufacturers who produce 

approximately 90 percent of the 

automatic commercial ice makers for 

sale in the United States. The four major 

manufacturers with the largest market 

share are Manitowoc, Scotsman, 

Hoshizaki, and Ice-O-Matic. The 

remaining 12 large and small 

manufacturers account for ten percent of 

domestic sales. 

DOE considered comments that all 

manufacturers and stakeholders made 

regarding the engineering analysis and 

made changes to the analysis, which are 

described in some detail in section 

III.IV.D. These changes reduced the 

highest efficiency levels determined to 

be possible using the design options 

considered in the analyses and 

increased the estimated costs associated 

with attaining most efficiency levels. 

Consequently, the most cost-effective 

efficiency levels for the final rule 

analysis were lower than for the NOPR. 

This applied to specific equipment 

classes associated with the products 

sold by some of these small businesses, 

for example continuous ice makers, IMH 

batch ice makers, and RCU batch ice 

makers. The energy standards were 

consequently set at efficiency levels that 

will be less burdensome to attain for the 

affected small businesses. 

2. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

For the purposes of analysis, DOE 

assumes that the seven small domestic 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers identified account for 

approximately 5 percent of industry 

shipments. While small business 

manufacturers of automatic commercial 

ice makers have small overall market 

share, some hold substantial market 

share in specific equipment classes. 

Several of these smaller firms specialize 

in producing industrial ice machines 

and the covered equipment they 

manufacture are extensions of industrial 

product lines that fall within the range 

of capacity covered by this rule. Others 

serve niche markets. Most have 

substantial portions of their business 

derived from equipment outside the 

scope of this rulemaking, as described 

further below, but are still considered 

small businesses based on the SBA 

limits for number of employees. 

At the new and amended levels, small 

business manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers are expected to 

face negative impacts on INPV. For the 

portions of their business covered by the 

standard, the impacts are approximately 

four times as severe as those felt by the 

industry at large: a loss of 49.8 percent 

of INPV for small businesses alone as 

compared to a loss of 12.5 percent for 

the industry at large. Where conversion 

costs are driven by the number of 

platforms requiring redesign at a 

particular standard level, small business 

manufacturers may be 

disproportionately affected. Product 

conversion costs including the 

investments made to redesign existing 

equipment to meet new or amended 

standards or to develop entirely new 

compliant equipment, as well as 

industry certification costs, do not scale 

with sales volume. As small 

manufacturers’ investments are spread 

over a much lower volume of 

shipments, recovering the cost of 

upfront investments is proportionately 

more difficult. Additionally, smaller 

manufacturers typically do not have the 

same technical resources and testing 

capacity as larger competitors. 

The product conversion investments 

required to comply are estimated to be 

over 10 times larger than the typical 

R&D expenditures for small businesses, 

whereas the industry as a whole is 

estimated to incur 4 times larger than 

typical R&D expenditures. Where the 

covered equipment from several small 

manufacturers are adaptations of larger 

platforms with capacities above the 

4,000 lb ice/24 hour threshold, it may 

not prove economical for them to invest 

in redesigning such a small portion of 

their product offering to meet standards. 

In confidential interviews, 

manufacturers indicated that many 

design options evaluated in the 

engineering analysis (e.g., higher 

efficiency motors and compressors) 

would require them to purchase more 

expensive components. In many 

industries, small manufacturers 

typically pay higher prices for 

components due to smaller purchasing 

volumes while their large competitors 

receive volume discounts. However, this 

effect is diminished for the automatic 

commercial ice maker manufacturing 

industry for two distinct reasons. One 

reason relates to the fact that the 

automatic commercial ice maker 

industry as a whole is a low volume 

industry. In confidential interviews, 

manufacturers indicated that they have 

little influence over their suppliers, 

suggesting the volume of their 

component orders is similarly 

insufficient to receive substantial 

discounts. The second reason relates to 

the fact that, for most small businesses, 

the equipment covered by this 

rulemaking represents only a fraction of 

overall business. Where small 

businesses are ordering similar 

components for non-covered equipment, 

their purchase volumes may not be as 

low as is indicated by the total unit 

shipments for small businesses. For 

these reasons, it is expected that any 

volume discount for components 

enjoyed by large manufacturers would 

not be substantially different from the 

prices paid by small business 

manufacturers. 

To estimate how small manufacturers 

would be potentially impacted, DOE 

developed specific small business 

inputs and scaling factors for the GRIM. 

These inputs were scaled from those 

used in the whole industry GRIM using 

information about the product portfolios 

of small businesses and the estimated 

market share of these businesses in each 

equipment class. DOE used this 

information in the GRIM to estimate the 

annual revenue, EBIT, R&D expense, 

and capital expenditures for a typical 

small manufacturer and to model the 

impact on INPV associated with the 

production of covered product; noting 

that for five of the seven small 

businesses in this analysis, only 15% of 

their product portfolio, which was 

based on review capacity ranges of the 

product offerings listed on these 

manufacturers’ Web sites, is covered 

product under today’s rule DOE then 

compared these impacts to those 

modeled for the industry at large, and 

found that small manufactures could 

lose up to 49.8 percent of the INPV 

associated with the production of 

covered product; as compared to a 

reduction in small business INPV of 

78.8 percent at the NOPR stage. Table 

VI.1 and Table VI.2 summarize the 

impacts on small business INPV at each 

TSL, and Table VI.3 and Table VI.4 

summarize the changes in results at TSL 

3, between the NOPR and Final Rule 

analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4751 

TABLE VI.1—COMPARISON OF SMALL BUSINESS MANUFACTURERS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER INPV * TO

THAT OF THE INDUSTRY AT LARGE BY TSL UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN MARKUP SCENARIO ** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Industry at Large—Impact on INPV (%) .................................................. (6.2) (9.2) (12.5) (15.3) (24.6) 

Small Businesses—Impact on INPV (%) ................................................. (18.3) (34.2) (48.8) (51.5) (57.2) 

* Small business manufacturer INPV represents only the INPV associated with the production and sale of covered product. Many small business manufacturers produce products not covered by this rule. 

** Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

TABLE VI.2—COMPARISON OF SMALL BUSINESS MANUFACTURERS OF AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKER INPV * TO

THAT OF THE INDUSTRY AT LARGE BY TSL UNDER THE PRESERVATION OF EBIT MARKUP SCENARIO ** 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Industry at Large—Impact on INPV (%) .................................................. (5.4) (7.7) (10.0) (10.1) (9.7) 

Small Businesses—Impact on INPV (%) ................................................. (19.1) (35.1) (49.8) (52.6) (68.4) 

* Small business manufacturer INPV represents only the INPV associated with the production and sale of covered product. Many small business manufacturers produce products not covered by this rule. 

** Values in parentheses are negative numbers. 

TABLE VI.3—COMPARISON OF SMALL

BUSINESS MANUFACTURERS OF

AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE

MAKER INPV * TO THAT OF THE INDUSTRY AT LARGE UNDER THE

PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN

MARKUP SCENARIO **; NOPR VS. 

FINAL RULE

NOPR 

TSL 3 

Final rule 

TSL 3 

Industry at Large— 

Impact on INPV 

(%) ......................... (20.5) (12.5) 

Small Businesses— 

Impact on INPV 

(%) ......................... (76.6) (48.8) 

* Small business manufacturer INPV represents only the INPV associated with the production and sale of covered product. Many 

small business manufacturers produce products not covered by this rule. 

** Values in parentheses are negative 

numbers. 

TABLE VI.4—COMPARISON OF SMALL

BUSINESS MANUFACTURERS OF

AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE

MAKER INPV * TO THAT OF THE INDUSTRY AT LARGE UNDER THE

PRESERVATION OF EBIT MARKUP

SCENARIO **; NOPR VS FINAL RULE

NOPR 

TSL 3 

Final rule 

TSL 3 

Industry at Large— 

Impact on INPV 

(%) ......................... (23.5) (10.0) 

Small Businesses— 

Impact on INPV 

(%) ......................... (78.6) (49.8) 

* Small business manufacturer INPV represents only the INPV associated with the production and sale of covered product. Many 

small business manufacturers produce products not covered by this rule. 

** Values in parentheses are negative 

numbers. 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being adopted 

today. 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

The discussion above analyzes 

impacts on small businesses that would 

result from DOE’s new and amended 

standards. In addition to the other TSLs 

being considered, the rulemaking TSD 

includes a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA). For automatic commercial ice 

making equipment, the RIA discusses 

the following policy alternatives: (1) No 

change in standard; (2) consumer 

rebates; (3) consumer tax credits; and (4) 

manufacturer tax credits; (5) voluntary 

energy efficiency targets; (6) bulk 

government purchases; and (7) 

extending the compliance date for small 

entities. While these alternatives may 

mitigate to some varying extent the 

economic impacts on small entities 

compared to the standards, DOE did not 

consider these alternatives further 

because they are either not feasible to 

implement without authority and 

funding from Congress, or are expected 

to result in energy savings that are much 

smaller (ranging from 39 percent to less 

than 53 percent) than those that will be 

achieved by the new and amended 

standard levels. In reviewing 

alternatives DOE analyzed a case in 

which the voluntary programs targeted 

efficiencies corresponding to final rule 

TSL 3. DOE also examined standards at 

lower efficiency levels, TSL 2 and TSL 

1. TSL 2 achieves 25 percent lower 

savings than TSL 3 and TSL 1 achieves 

less than half the savings of TSL 3. (See 

Table V.50 for the estimated impacts of 

standards at lower TSLs.) Voluntary 

programs at these levels achieve only a 

fraction of the savings achieved by 

standards and would provide even 

lower savings benefits. As shown in 

Table VI.1 through Table VI.4, the 

changes to the efficiency levels 

comprising TSL 3 between the NOPR 

and final rule resulted in a substantial 

reduction in the impacts faced by small 

businesses. To achieve further 

substantial reductions in small business 

impacts would force the standard down 

to TSL 1 levels, at the expense of 

substantial energy savings and NPV 

benefits, which would be inconsistent 

with DOE’s statutory mandate to 

maximize the improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE believes 

that establishing standards at TSL 3 

provides the optimum balance between 

energy savings benefits and impacts on 

small businesses. Accordingly, DOE is 

declining to adopt any of these 

alternatives and is adopting the 

standards set forth in this rulemaking. 

(See chapter 17 of the TSD for further 

detail on the policy alternatives DOE 

considered.) 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

For example, individual manufacturers 

may petition for a waiver of the 

applicable test procedure. Further, 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed 

$8,000,000 may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. Additionally, Section 504 of 

the Department of Energy Organization 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority 

for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued 

under EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4752 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

hardship, inequity, or unfair 

distribution of burdens’’ that may be 

imposed on that manufacturer as a 

result of such rule. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and part 1003 for additional details. 

5. Response to Small Business 

Comments and Comments of the Office 

of Advocacy 

The Chief Counsel of the SBA Office 

of Advocacy submitted comments 

regarding the impact of the proposed 

standards on small businesses and 

recommended that DOE use its 

discretion to adopt an alternative to the 

proposed standard that is achievable for 

small manufacturers. This letter is 

posted to the docket at http://www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE2010-BT-STD-0037. 

DOE has taken several steps to 

minimize the impact of the new and 

amended standards on small businesses. 

The comments received in response to 

the proposed standards led DOE to hold 

an additional public meeting and allow 

stakeholders more time to submit 

additional information to DOE’s 

consultant pursuant to non-disclosure 

agreements regarding efficiency gains 

and costs of potential design options. 

DOE reviewed additional market data, 

including published ratings of available 

ice makers, to recalibrate its engineering 

analysis, and as a result, revised the 

proposed TSL levels. DOE issued a 

NODA to announce the availability of 

the revised analysis and sought 

comment from stakeholders. In this final 

rule, DOE is adopting the TSL 3 

presented in the NODA. As discussed 

previously, the changes to the efficiency 

levels comprising TSL 3 between the 

NOPR and final rule resulted in a 

standard that is less burdensome for 

small businesses. 

In addition, in reviewing all available 

data sources received in response to the 

proposed standards, DOE found that the 

IMH–W continuous class ice makers 

consume more condenser water than 

DOE assumed at the NOPR stage. In 

setting the standard for the continuous 

class condenser water use, DOE 

intended that the baseline reflect the 

existing market for continuous type 

units. Based on this new data, the 

standard for condenser water use is set 

at 10 percent below the baseline 

condenser water use level for IMH–W 

batch ice makers, rather than 20 percent, 

as was proposed in the NOPR. As a 

result, all IMH–W continuous class 

models produced by small business 

manufacturers are compliant with the 

condenser water use standard for this 

class. 

DOE notes that while any one 

regulation may not impose a significant 

burden on small business 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have consequences for some small 

business manufacturers. In researching 

the product offerings of small business 

manufacturers covered by this 

rulemaking, DOE did not identify any 

that also manufacture products 

impacted by the recently issued energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment or walk-in 

coolers and freezers. DOE will continue 

to work with industry to ensure that 

cumulative impacts from its regulations 

are not unduly burdensome. 

The SBA Office of Advocacy also 

recommended that DOE adopt a lower 

TSL for small businesses because the 

level proposed in the NOPR would have 

a disproportionately negative impact on 

small business manufacturers. As 

discussed previously, the changes to the 

analysis between the NOPR and final 

rule resulted in different TSLs. As such, 

the efficiency levels comprising TSL 3 

as set forth in this final rule result in a 

substantial reduction in the impacts 

faced by small business manufacturers, 

as compared to those proposed in the 

NOPR. DOE also examined standards at 

lower efficiency levels, TSL 2 and TSL 

1. TSL 2 achieves 25 percent lower 

savings than TSL 3 and TSL 1 achieves 

less than half the savings of TSL 3. (See 

Table V.50 for the estimated impacts of 

standards at lower TSLs.) The impacts 

on small manufacturers were also 

considered in comparison to the 

impacts on larger manufacturers to 

ensure that small business would 

remain competitive in the market. 

Because they compete mostly in market 

niches not covered by these standards, 

these rules apply to about 15 percent of 

these companies product in comparison 

to 100 percent for large business. In 

addition, for one of the remaining two 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately two-thirds of its models 

already meet the energy efficiency 

standard and 100 percent of its models 

meet the condenser water standard. In 

comparison, a typical large 

manufacturer will need to redesign half 

of their products to meet the new and 

amended standards. Pursuant to DOE’s 

statutory mandate, any new or amended 

standard must maximize the 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE determined 

that TSL 3 will achieve significant 

energy savings and is economically 

justified, and therefore is adopting TSL 

3 in this final rule. DOE believes that 

establishing standards at TSL 3 provides 

the optimum balance between energy 

savings benefits and impacts on small 

businesses. 

Finally, the SBA Office of Advocacy 

recommended that DOE consider 

extending the compliance date for small 

entities. DOE notes that EPCA requires 

that the amended standards established 

in this rulemaking must apply to 

equipment that is manufactured on or 

after 3 years after the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register unless 

DOE determines, by rule, that a 3-year 

period is inadequate, in which case DOE 

may extend the compliance date for that 

standard by an additional 2 years. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(C)) As described 

previously, the standard levels set forth 

in this final rule are less stringent 

relative to those proposed in the NOPR, 

and fewer ice maker models will require 

redesign to meet the new standard. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that the 

3-year period is adequate and is not 

extending the compliance date for small 

business manufacturers. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of automatic 

commercial ice makers must certify to 

DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including commercial refrigeration 

equipment. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 

2011). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4753 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that this 

final rule fits within the category of 

actions included in Categorical 

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise 

meets the requirements for application 

of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 

B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, 

B(1)–(5). This final rule fits within the 

category of actions because it is a 

rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial equipment, and 

for which none of the exceptions 

identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. 

Therefore, DOE has made a CX 

determination for this rulemaking, and 

DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this rule. DOE’s CX determination for 

this final rule is available at http://

energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusiondeterminations-b51. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

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

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 

(February 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

amended regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

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

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE has concluded that this final rule 

would likely require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Such expenditures may include: 

(1) Investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by automatic commercial 

ice maker manufacturers in the years 

between the final rule and the 

compliance date for the new standards, 

and (2) incremental additional 

expenditures by consumers to purchase 

higher-efficiency automatic commercial 

ice maker, starting at the compliance 

date for the applicable standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the notice of final rulemaking and the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

the TSD for this final rule respond to 

those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise, or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o), 6313(d), this final rule 

would establish energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

maker that are designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE has determined to 

be both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ chapter 17 of the TSD for 

today’s final rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4754 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under guidelines established 

by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed this final rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any 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. 

DOE has concluded that this 

regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers, is not 

a significant energy action because the 

new and amended standards are not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the final 

rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (January 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions. 70 FR at 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

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

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is a ‘‘major 

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

VII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

31, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 

chapter II of title 10, of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 431.136 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.136 Energy conservation standards 

and their effective dates. 

(a) All basic models of commercial ice 

makers must be tested for performance 

using the applicable DOE test procedure 

in § 431.134, be compliant with the 

applicable standards set forth in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section, and be certified to the 

Department of Energy under 10 CFR 

part 429 of this chapter. 

(b) Each cube type automatic 

commercial ice maker with capacities 

between 50 and 2,500 pounds per 24- 

hour period manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2010 and before January 28, 

2018, shall meet the following standard 

levels: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4755 

Equipment type Type of 

cooling 

Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 

hours 

Maximum 

energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice 

Maximum 

condenser water 

use 1

gal/100 lb ice 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... <500 7.8–0.0055H 2 ....... 200–0.022H. 

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

<1,436 

5.58–0.0011H ....... 200–0.022H. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... ≥1,436 4.0 ......................... 200–0.022H. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Air ............ <450 10.26–0.0086H ..... Not Applicable. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Air ............ ≥450 6.89–0.0011H ....... Not Applicable. 

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

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .................................... Air ............ ≥1,000 5.1 ......................... Not Applicable. 

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

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .................................... Air ............ ≥934 5.3 ......................... Not Applicable. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Water ....... <200 11.40–0.019H ....... 191–0.0315H. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Water ....... ≥200 7.6 ......................... 191–0.0315H. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Air ............ <175 18.0–0.0469H ....... Not Applicable. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Air ............ ≥175 9.8 ......................... Not Applicable. 

1Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

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

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

(c) Each batch type automatic 

commercial ice maker with capacities 

between 50 and 4,000 pounds per 24- 

hour period manufactured on or after 

January 28, 2018, shall meet the 

following standard levels: 

Equipment type Type of 

cooling 

Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 

hours 

Maximum 

energy use 

kilowatt-hours 

(kWh)/100 lb ice 1

Maximum 

condenser water 

use 

gal/100 lb ice 2

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... < 300 6.88–0.0055H ....... 200–0.022H. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... ≥300 and 

<850 

5.80–0.00191H ..... 200–0.022H. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... ≥850 and 

<1,500 

4.42–0.00028H ..... 200–0.022H. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... ≥1,500 and 

<2,500 

4.0 ......................... 200–0.022H. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... ≥2,500 and 

<4,000 

4.0 ......................... 145. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Air ............ < 300 10–0.01233H ........ NA. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Air ............ ≥ 300 and < 

800 

7.05–0.0025H ....... NA. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Air ............ ≥ 800 and < 

1,500 

5.55–0.00063H ..... NA. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Air ............ ≥ 1500 and 

< 4,000 

4.61 ....................... NA. 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .................................... Air ............ < 988 7.97–0.00342H ..... NA. 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .................................... Air ............ ≥ 988 and < 

4,000 

4.59 ....................... NA. 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ......................................... Air ............ < 930 7.97–0.00342H ..... NA. 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ......................................... Air ............ ≥ 930 and < 

4,000 

4.79 ....................... NA. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Water ....... < 200 9.5–0.019H ........... 191–0.0315H. 

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

2,500 

5.7 ......................... 191–0.0315H. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Water ....... ≥ 2,500 and 

< 4,000 

5.7 ......................... 112. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Air ............ < 110 14.79–0.0469H ..... NA. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Air ............ ≥ 110 and < 

200 

12.42–0.02533H ... NA. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Air ............ ≥ 200 and < 

4,000 

7.35 ....................... NA. 

1 H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). 2Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

4756 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 18 / Wednesday, January 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) Each continuous type automatic 

commercial ice maker with capacities 

between 50 and 4,000 pounds per 24- 

hour period manufactured on or after 

January 28, 2018, shall meet the 

following standard levels: 

Equipment type Type of 

cooling 

Harvest rate 

lb ice/24 

hours 

Maximum 

energy use 

kWh/100 lb ice 1

Maximum 

condenser water 

use 

gal/100 lb ice 2

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... <801 6.48–0.00267H ..... 180–0.0198H. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... ≥801 and 

<2,500 

4.34 ....................... 180–0.0198H. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Water ....... ≥2,500 and 

<4,000 

4.34 ....................... 130.5. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Air ............ <310 9.19–0.00629H ..... NA. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Air ............ ≥310 and 

<820 

8.23–0.0032H ....... NA. 

Ice-Making Head ......................................................................................... Air ............ ≥820 and 

<4,000 

5.61 ....................... NA. 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .................................... Air ............ <800 9.7–0.0058H ......... NA. 

Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) .................................... Air ............ ≥800 and 

<4,000 

5.06 ....................... NA. 

Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor ......................................... Air ............ <800 9.9–0.0058H ......... NA. 

≥800 and 

<4,000 

5.26 ....................... NA. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Water ....... <900 7.6–0.00302H ....... 153–0.0252H. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Water ....... ≥900 and 

<2,500 

4.88 ....................... 153–0.0252H. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Water ....... ≥2,500 and 

<4,000 

4.88 ....................... 90. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Air ............ <200 14.22–0.03H ......... NA. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Air ............ ≥200 and 

<700 

9.47–0.00624H ..... NA. 

Self-Contained ............................................................................................ Air ............ ≥700 and 

<4,000 

5.1 ......................... NA. 

1 H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). 2Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. 

Appendix 

[The following letter from the Department of 

Justice will not appear in the Code of 

Federal Regulations.] 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division, William J. Baer, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, RFK Main 

Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20530–0001, 

(202)514–2401/(202)616–2645 (Fax) 

December 24, 2014 

Eric J. Fygi, Deputy General Counsel, 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC 

20585 

Re: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers, 

Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi: 

I am responding to your December 3, 2014 

letter seeking the views of the Attorney 

General about the potential impact on 

competition of proposed energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers. Your request was submitted under 

Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act, as amended 

(ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which 

requires the Attorney General to make a 

determination of the impact of any lessening 

of competition that is likely to result from the 

imposition of proposed energy conservation 

standards. The Attorney General’s 

responsibility for responding to requests from 

other departments about the effect of a 

program on competition has been delegated 

to the Assistant Attorney General for the 

Antitrust Division in 28 CFR §0.40(g). 

In conducting its analysis the Antitrust 

Division examines whether a proposed 

standard may lessen competition, for 

example, by substantially limiting consumer 

choice, by placing certain manufacturers at 

an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or 

by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in 

production or distribution of particular 

products. A lessening of competition could 

result in higher prices to manufacturers and 

consumers. 

We have reviewed the proposed standards 

contained in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (79 FR 14848, March 17, 2014) 

(NOPR). In light of the short time frame for 

our review of the proposed standards, we 

also consulted with DOE staff on the issues 

raised by the proposed NOPR. 

Based on this review and consultation with 

DOE staff, our conclusion is that the 

proposed energy conservation standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers are 

unlikely to have a significant adverse impact 

on competition. 

Sincerely, 

William J. Baer 

Enclosure 

[FR Doc. 2015–00326 Filed 1–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2