Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-09676

Proposed Rule2023-09676

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

May 11, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to periodically determine whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE proposes to amend and establish energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 91 (Thursday, May 11, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30508-30596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09676]

[[Page 30507]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 91

May 11, 2023

Part IV

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Part 431

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Automatic Commercial Ice Makers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 30508]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022]
RIN 1904-AE47

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended,
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including automatic
commercial ice makers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) to periodically determine whether more stringent standards would
be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would
result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR), DOE proposes to amend and establish energy
conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers and also
announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed
standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than July 10, 2023.
Meeting: DOE will hold a meeting via a webinar on Wednesday, June,
14, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before June 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under docket
number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80c1c3c9cdb2b0b1b7d3d4c4b0b0b2b2c0e5e5aee4efe5aee7eff6">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket number
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b5e555e495c4215484f5a555f5a495f487b4e485f5451155c544d">[email&#160;protected]</a> on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-0729. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b1a2b2b37323a35383e082f3a353f3a293f280a2e3e282f323435281b3e3e753f343e753c342d">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3595. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86cdf4eff5f2efe8a8cde9e3f4e8efe1c6eef7a8e2e9e3a8e1e9f0">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#59182929353038373a3c0a2d38373d382b3d2a082c3c2a2d3036372a193c3c773d363c773e362f">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
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
C. Deviation From Process Rule
1. Framework Document
2. Public Comment Period
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes
a. Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
2. Manufacturer Trade Groups
3. Market Share
4. Inventory
5. Technology Options
a. Compressors
b. Microchannel Condensers

[[Page 30509]]

B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Increased Condenser Air Flow
b. Reduced Energy Loss Due to Evaporator Thermal Cycling
c. Larger Diameter Remote Suction Line
d. Reduced Potable Water Use (<20 Gal/100 lb Ice)
2. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Energy Use
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
2. Cost Analysis
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
4. Manufacturer Selling Price
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
1. Ice Storage
2. Scaling
3. Harvest Rate
4. Duty Cycle
5. Low-Capacity ACIM Equipment
6. Water Use
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Water Prices
6. Maintenance and Repair Costs
7. Equipment Lifetime
8. Discount Rates
9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
10. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Refrigerant Regulation
b. Scope Expansion
c. Supply Chain Concerns
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Significance of Water Savings
c. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
d. Indirect Impacts on Employment
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
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Automatic
Commercial Ice Maker Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14904
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. 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. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
1. Conduct of the Webinar
C. Submission of Comments
D. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (EPCA),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) This includes automatic commercial ice maker (ACIM) equipment,
the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflects the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
EPCA also provides that, not later than 6 years after issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either
a notice of determination that standards for the equipment do not need
to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes to amend energy conservation standards
for automatic commercial ice makers and to establish new energy
conservation standards for covered equipment not yet subject to energy
conservation standards. The proposed standards, which are expressed in
the maximum allowable energy use as a function of the harvest rate of
the given equipment, are shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2. These
proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all automatic commercial
ice makers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 manufactured in, or
imported into, the United States on or after the date that is (1) 3
years after the date on which the final amended standard is published
or (2) if the Secretary determines, by rule, that 3 years is
inadequate, not later than 5 years after the date on which the final
amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(B) and (3)(B))
DOE notes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed refrigerant restrictions pursuant to the American Innovation

[[Page 30510]]

and Manufacturing Act (AIM Act) \3\ affecting automatic commercial ice
makers in a NOPR published on December 15, 2022 (December 2022 EPA
NOPR). 87 FR 76738. The proposal would prohibit manufacture or import
of such ice makers starting January 1, 2025, and would ban sale,
distribution, purchase, receipt, or export of such ice makers starting
January 1, 2026. Id. at 87 FR 76809. See section IV.A.5.a of this
document for more details. DOE understands that it would be beneficial
to ACIM equipment manufacturers to align the compliance date of any DOE
amended or established standards as closely as possible with the
refrigerant prohibition dates proposed by the December 2022 EPA NOPR.
Therefore, DOE is proposing that the proposed standards, if adopted,
would apply to all automatic commercial ice makers listed in Table I.1
and Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on
or after the date that is 3 years after the date on which the final
amended standard is published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, entitled ``Technology
Transitions,'' the EPA may by rule restrict the use of
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in sectors or subsectors where they are
used. A person or entity may also petition EPA to promulgate such a
rule. ``H.R.133--116th Congress (2019-2020): Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021.'' <a href="http://Congress.gov">Congress.gov</a>, Library of Congress, 27
December 2020, <a href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133">www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133</a>.

Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Batch Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Type of....... Harvest rate (lb ice/24 hours) Maximum................. Maximum
cooling....... energy use *............ condenser
(kWh/100 lb ice)........ water use **
(gal/100 lb ice)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice-Making Head................. Water......... >50 and <300 6.49-0.0055H............ 200-0.022H
Ice-Making Head................. Water......... >=300 and <785 5.41-0.00191H........... 200-0.022H
Ice-Making Head................. Water......... >=785 and <1,500 4.13-0.00028H........... 200-0.022H
Ice-Making Head................. Water......... >=1,500 and <2,500 4....................... 200-0.022H
Ice-Making Head................. Water......... >=2,500 and <4,000 4....................... 145
Ice-Making Head................. Air........... >50 and <300 9.4-0.01233H............ NA
Ice-Making Head................. Air........... >=300 and <727 6.45-0.0025H............ NA
Ice-Making Head................. Air........... >=727 and <1,500 5.09-0.00063H........... NA
Ice-Making Head................. Air........... >=1,500 and <4,000 4.23.................... NA
Remote Condensing (but Not Air........... >50 and <988 7.83-0.00342H........... NA
Remote Compressor).
Remote Condensing (but Not Air........... >=988 and <4,000 4.45.................... NA
Remote Compressor).
Remote Condensing and Remote Air........... >50 and <930 7.82-0.00342H........... NA
Compressor.
Remote Condensing and Remote Air........... >=930 and <4,000 4.64.................... NA
Compressor.
Self-Contained.................. Water......... >50 and <200 8.18-0.019H............. 191-0.0315H
Self-Contained.................. Water......... >=200 and <2,500 4.38.................... 191-0.0315H
Self-Contained.................. Water......... >=2,500 and <4,000 4.38.................... 112
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained.................. Air........... <=50 Portable:
<=38..................................... 19.43-0.27613H.......... NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>38 and <=50............................. 8.94.................... NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerated Storage........................ 29.8-0.37063H........... NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Portable or Refrigerated Storage........ 21.08-0.19634H.......... NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained.................. Air........... >50 and <134 13.61-0.0469H........... NA
Self-Contained.................. Air........... >=134 and <200 10.72-0.02533H.......... NA
Self-Contained.................. Air........... >=200 and <4,000 5.65.................... NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate.
** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice.

Table I.2--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Continuous Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Type of....... Harvest rate (lb ice/24 hours) Maximum................. Maximum
cooling....... energy use *............ condenser
(kWh/100 lb ice)........ water use **
(gal/100 lb ice)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice-Making Head................. Water......... >50 and <801 6.24-0.00267H........... 180-0.0198H
Ice-Making Head................. Water......... >=801 and <1,500 4.1..................... 180-0.0198H
Ice-Making Head................. Water......... >=1,500 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........... >50 and <310 7.49-0.00629H........... NA
Ice-Making Head................. Air........... >=310 and <820 6.53-0.0032H............ NA
Ice-Making Head................. Air........... >=820 and <1,500 3.91.................... NA
Ice-Making Head................. Air........... >=1,500 and <4,000 4.67.................... NA
Remote Condensing (but Not Air........... >50 and <800 9.24-0.0058H............ NA
Remote Compressor).
Remote Condensing (but Not Air........... >=800 and <4,000 4.6..................... NA
Remote Compressor).
Remote Condensing and Remote Air........... >50 and <800 9.42-0.0058H............ NA
Compressor.
Remote Condensing and Remote Air........... >=800 and <4,000 4.78.................... NA
Compressor.
Self-Contained.................. Water......... >50 and <900 6.5-0.00302H............ 153-0.0252H
Self-Contained.................. Water......... >=900 and <2,500 3.78.................... 153-0.0252H
Self-Contained.................. Water......... >=2,500 and <4,000 3.78.................... 90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained.................. Air........... <=50 Portable.................................... 22.99-0.27789H.......... NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Portable................................ 24.51-0.29623H..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained.................. Air........... >50 and <149 11.2-0.03H.............. NA
Self-Contained.................. Air........... >=149 and <700 7.66-0.00624H........... NA

[[Page 30511]]

Self-Contained.................. Air........... >=700 and <4,000 3.29.................... NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate.
** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice.

DOE requests comments on its proposal to require that the proposed
standards, if adopted, would apply to all automatic commercial ice
makers listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 manufactured in, or imported
into, the United States on or after the date that is 3 years after the
date on which the final amended standard is published. More generally,
DOE requests comment on whether it would be beneficial to ACIM
equipment manufacturers to align the compliance date of any DOE amended
or established standards as closely as possible with the refrigerant
prohibition dates proposed by the December 2022 EPA NOPR.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards on consumers of automatic commercial ice makers, as
measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the simple
payback period (PBP).\4\ The average LCC savings are positive for all
equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of
automatic commercial ice makers, which is estimated to be 8.5 years for
high-capacity automatic commercial ice makers and 7.5 years for low-
capacity ACIM equipment (B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (<=38), B-SC-A
(Refrigerated Storage ACIM), and B-SC-A (<=50). See section IV.F.7 of
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.10 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

Table I.3--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on
Consumers of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC
Equipment class savings * Simple payback
(2022$) period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-IMH-W (>=300 and <785)............ 0 0.0
B-IMH-W (>=785 and <1,500).......... 0 0.0
B-IMH-A (>=300 and <727)............ 22 4.4
B-IMH-A (>=727 and <1,500).......... 232 3.4
B-RC(NRC)-A (>=988 and <4,000)...... 37 5.2
B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (<=38)....... 1 3.8
B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM).. 3 2.1
B-SC-A (<=50)....................... 8 5.7
B-SC-A (>50 and <134)............... 0 0.0
B-SC-A (>=200 and <4,000)........... 21 6.0
C-IMH-W (>50 and <801).............. 0 0.0
C-IMH-A (>=310 and <820)............ 3 4.8
C-RC&RC-A (>=800 and <4,000)........ 162 4.2
C-SC-A (>50 and <149)............... 7 5.3
C-SC-A (>=149 and <700)............. 2 5.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B = batch; C = continuous.
IMH = ice making head; SC = self-contained; RC = remote condensing.
W = water type of cooling; A = air type of cooling.
Number in parentheses indicates harvest rate.
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted
cash flows to the industry from the NOPR publication year through the
end of the analysis period (2023-2056). Using a real discount rate of
9.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of automatic
commercial ice makers in the case without new or amended standards is
$96.4 million. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is
estimated to range from -14.4 percent to -12.0 percent, which is
approximately -$13.9 million to -$11.5 million. To bring equipment into
compliance with new and amended standards, it is estimated that the
industry would incur total conversion costs of $15.9 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
results of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) are presented in
section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for automatic commercial ice makers would save a significant
amount of

[[Page 30512]]

energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime
energy savings for automatic commercial ice makers purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the
amended standards (2027-2056) amount to 0.16 quadrillion British
thermal units (Btu) or quads.\6\ This represents a savings of 4 percent
relative to the energy use of this equipment in the case without
amended standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings.
FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting,
processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the
impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the
FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits
of the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers ranges
from $0.14 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.38 billion (at
a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total
value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased
product costs for automatic commercial ice makers purchased in 2027-
2056.
In addition, the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice
makers are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE
estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative
emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 5
million metric tons (Mt) \7\ of carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>), 2
thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), 8 thousand tons of
nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), 36 thousand tons of methane
(CH<INF>4</INF>), 0.06 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N<INF>2</INF>O),
and 0.015 tons of mercury (Hg).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\8\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2022 (AEO2022). AEO2022 represents current Federal and state
legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time
of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further
discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that affect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (GHGs) using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (SC-CO<INF>2</INF>), the social cost of methane
(SC-CH<INF>4</INF>), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O). Together these represent the social cost of GHGs (SC-
GHGs). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency
Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).\9\ The
derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this
document. For presentation purposes, the climate benefits associated
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to
be $0.24 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering
the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates
from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would
be $0.24 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.56 billion
using a 3-percent discount rate.\10\ DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>) PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor
health benefits and (for NO<INF>X</INF>) ozone precursor health
benefits but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects, such as health benefits, from reductions in direct
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers.
There are other important unquantified effects, including certain
unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from
the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified
energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.4--Summary of Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers (TSL 3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion $2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 0.88
Climate Benefits *...................................... 0.24
Health Benefits **...................................... 0.56
---------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................. 1.68
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............. 0.51
---------------
Net Benefits........................................ 1.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 0.42
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................... 0.24
Health Benefits **...................................... 0.24
---------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................. 0.89
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............. 0.28
---------------
Net Benefits........................................ 0.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with
equipment shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to
consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-
2056.

[[Page 30513]]

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent,
and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount
rate) (see section IV.L of this proposed rulemaking). Together these
represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this
table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-
percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the
importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all
four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing
GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in
the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and
Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published
in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of ACIM equipment
shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions
achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated
based on the lifetime of ACIM equipment shipped in 2027-2056. Total
benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using
the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent discount rate. Estimates
of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section
IV.L of this document.
Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $29 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $44 million in reduced
equipment operating costs, $14 million in climate benefits, and $25
million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount
to $53 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $29 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $51
million in reduced operating costs, $14 million in climate benefits,
and $32 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $67 million per year.

Table I.5--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice
Makers
[TSL 3]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2022$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 51 50 52
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 14 14 14
Health Benefits **.............................................. 32 32 33
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 96 96 98
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 29 31 29
-----------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 67 64 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 44 43 45
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 14 14 14
Health Benefits **.............................................. 25 25 26
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 83 82 84
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 29 31 29

[[Page 30514]]

Net Benefits................................................ 53 51 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with automatic commercial ice makers shipped in
2027--2056. These results include benefits to consumers that accrue after 2056 from the equipment shipped in
2027-2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices
from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In
addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline
rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods
used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that
the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
proposed rulemaking). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of
considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of
reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in
February 2021 by the IWG.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed energy conservation
standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result
in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards
to technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels
are already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by
this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that
the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the
burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for automatic commercial ice makers is $29 million
per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $44 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $14
million in climate benefits, and $25 million in health benefits. The
net benefit amounts to $53 million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\12\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 0.16 quads full-fuel-cycle (FFC),
the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 4.2 million homes.
In addition, they are projected to reduce CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 5
Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has tentatively determined the energy
savings from the proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of
the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder
of this document and the accompanying technical support document (NOPR
TSD).
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards and is still considering them in this proposed
rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential
burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh
the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
automatic commercial ice makers.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment
includes automatic commercial ice makers, the subject of this document.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(F)) EPCA prescribed initial standards for this
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) EPCA also authorizes DOE to establish
new standards for automatic commercial ice makers not covered by the
statutory standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)) Not later than January 1,

[[Page 30515]]

2015, with respect to the standards established under 42 U.S.C.
6313(d)(1), and, not later than 5 years after the date on which the
standards take effect, with respect to the standards established under
42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2), EPCA required DOE to issue a final rule to
determine whether amending the applicable standards is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A)) And not
later than 5 years after the effective date of any amended standards
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A) or the publication of a final rule
determining that amending the standards is not technologically feasible
or economically justified, DOE must issue a final rule to determine
whether amending the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)
or the amended standards, as applicable, is technologically feasible or
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(B)) A final rule issued
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2) or (3) must establish standards at the
maximum level that is technologically feasible and economically
justified, as provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p). (42 U.S.C.
6313(d)(4)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after
the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. (42
U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296)
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
61316(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers
of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis
for (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the
applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations
about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment
complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for automatic
commercial ice makers appear at 10 CFR 431.134.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including automatic commercial
ice makers. Any new or amended standard for a covered equipment must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard
that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6416(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain
equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers, if no test
procedure has been established for the equipment, or (2) if DOE
determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-
(B)) 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard,
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following
seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable,
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA 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 or equipment 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA 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 a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) 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 in any
covered equipment 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered equipment that has two or
more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a
type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use,
if DOE determines that equipment within such group (1) consume a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment
within such type (or class), or (2) 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. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In

[[Page 30516]]

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

B. Background

1. Current Standards
In a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 28,
2015, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for
automatic commercial ice makers manufactured on and after January 28,
2018 (January 2015 Final Rule). 80 FR 4645. These standards are set
forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.136(c) and (d) and are
repeated in Table II.1 and Table II.2.

Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Batch Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum condenser
Equipment type Condenser cooling Harvest rate (lb Maximum energy use water use ** (gal/
ice/24 h) (kWh/100 lb ice) 100 lb ice)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. 200-0.022H.
Ice-Making Head................. Water............. >=2,500 and <4,000 4................. 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............... >=1,500 and <4,000 4.61.............. NA.
Remote Condensing (but Not Air............... <988.............. 7.97-0.00342H..... NA.
Remote Compressor).
Remote Condensing (but Not Air............... >=988 and <4,000.. 4.59.............. NA.
Remote Compressor).
Remote Condensing and Remote Air............... <930.............. 7.97-0.00342H..... NA.
Compressor.
Remote Condensing and Remote Air............... >=930 and <4,000.. 4.79.............. NA.
Compressor.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.2--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Continuous Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum condenser
Equipment type Condenser cooling Harvest rate (lb Maximum energy use water use (gal/100
ice/24 h) (kWh/100 lb ice) lb ice)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Air............... <800.............. 9.7-0.0058H....... NA.
Remote Compressor).
Remote Condensing (but Not Air............... >=800 and <4,000.. 5.06.............. NA.
Remote Compressor).
Remote Condensing and Remote Air............... <800.............. 9.9-0.0058H....... NA.
Compressor.
Remote Condensing and Remote Air............... >=800 and <4,000.. 5.26.............. NA.
Compressor.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.

[[Page 30517]]

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
On September 29, 2020, DOE published a request for information
(RFI) that identified various issues on which DOE sought comment to
inform its determination of whether the energy conservation standards
for automatic commercial ice makers need to be amended (September 2020
RFI). 85 FR 60923.
On March 25, 2022, DOE published a notice that announced the
availability of the preliminary analysis (March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis) it conducted for purposes of evaluating the need for amended
energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. 87
FR 17025. In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on
the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate
efficiency levels for automatic commercial ice makers, the results of
preliminary analyses performed, and the potential energy conservation
standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE presented in the
accompanying preliminary TSD (March 2022 Preliminary TSD).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ 2022-03 Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency
Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. Available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 5, 2022, DOE held a public webinar in which it presented the
methods and analysis in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis and
solicited public comment.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Webinar transcript available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0025">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0025</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.3.

Table II.3--List of Commenters With Written Submissions or Oral Comments in Response to the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR number. in the Commenter type
docket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI...................... 21 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Commenters.......... 22 Efficiency Organization.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, New York State
Energy Research Development Authority,
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM...................... 27 Trade Association.
Manufacturers *.
Follett Products LLC **................. Follett................... 23 Manufacturer.
GE Appliances, a Haier company.......... GEA....................... 31 Manufacturer.
Hoshizaki America, Inc.................. Hoshizaki................. 20 Manufacturer.
North American Association of Food NAFEM..................... 19 Trade Association.
Equipment Manufacturers.
Pacific Gas and Electric; Southern CA IOUs................... 18 Utilities.
California Edison; San Diego Gas &
Electric.
PEG, LLC................................ PEG....................... 28 Consultant.
Scotsman Ice Systems.................... Scotsman.................. 30 Manufacturer.
Welbilt, Inc............................ Welbilt................... *** 25 Manufacturer.
Whirlpool Corporation................... Whirlpool................. 26 Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* AHAM submitted a public comment and a separate comment, which AHAM requested be treated as Confidential
Business Information.
** Follett requested that its response be treated as Confidential Business Information.
*** Document number 25 is the transcript of the webinar. Commenter did not submit written comments.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\15\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the May 5, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments
throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during the webinar
that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized
and cited separately throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers.
(Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022, which is maintained at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references are arranged as follows:
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Process Rule

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``Process Rule''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in the Process Rule regarding the pre-NOPR and NOPR stages
for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. 10 CFR 431.4.
1. Framework Document
Section 6(a)(2) of the Process Rule states that if DOE determines
it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages
of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that
DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary
analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. While DOE
published a preliminary analysis for this rulemaking (see 87 FR 17025),
DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the
preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, that chapter 2 of the
preliminary technical support document that accompanied the preliminary
analysis--entitled Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested
Parties, and DOE Responses--describes the general analytical framework
that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential amended energy
conservation standards.\16\ As such, publication of a separate
Framework Document would be largely redundant of previously published
documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The preliminary technical support document is available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022-0009</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Public Comment Period
Section 6(f)(2) of the Process Rule specifies that the length of
the public comment period for a NOPR will be not less than 75 calendar
days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted instead to provide a 60-day comment
period. DOE is opting to deviate from the 75-day comment period because
stakeholders have already been afforded multiple opportunities to
provide comments on

[[Page 30518]]

this rulemaking. As noted previously, DOE requested comment on various
issues pertaining to this standards rulemaking in the September 2020
RFI and provided stakeholders with a 75-day comment period. 85 FR
60923. DOE initially provided a 60-day comment period for stakeholders
to provide input on the analyses presented in the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis. 87 FR 17025. DOE subsequently extended the March
2022 Preliminary Analysis comment period by 14 days. 87 FR 31964. The
analytical assumptions and approaches used for the analyses conducted
for this NOPR are similar to those used for the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis. Therefore, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is
appropriate and will provide interested parties with a meaningful
opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
AHRI commented in concern over the flux in regulations and
standards that apply to this industry that make technical analysis
difficult and encouraged DOE to balance the holistic scope of change in
the ACIM industry in the context of energy conservation, environmental
conservation, environmental protection, and end-user safety. (AHRI, No.
21 at p. 6)
AHRI commented that it believes that current energy conservation
standards are appropriate and more stringent standards are not
necessary. (Id. at p. 3) AHRI does not believe it is appropriate to
establish more stringent energy conservation standards based on the
current efficiency level of ACIM equipment and the forecasted
technology changes due to changing refrigerants, and AHRI believes the
potential energy savings from a new standard would be negligible. (Id.)
Similarly, Hoshizaki commented that, based on the current
efficiency level of ACIM equipment and forecasted technology changes
due to changing refrigerants, it does not believe it is appropriate for
DOE to establish energy conservation standards beyond the baseline, as
the potential energy savings from a new standard are unlikely to exceed
the 10 percent/0.3 quadrillion Btu threshold over baseline energy
consumption needed to promulgate a rulemaking. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p.
2)
PEG commented that less is more when it comes to regulations and to
let the competitive marketplace drive energy efficiency so that
manufacturers can add value to their products by making them more
efficient than competitor models. (PEG, No. 28 at p. 1)

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers the commercial equipment that meets the definition
of automatic commercial ice makers. See 10 CFR 431.132.
``Automatic commercial ice maker'' is defined as a factory-made
assembly (not necessarily shipped in one package) that (1) consists of
a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated
unit, with means for making and harvesting ice, and (2) may include
means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ice.
(Id.)
In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE considered potential new
equipment classes for automatic commercial ice makers with harvest
rates less than or equal to 50 lb ice/24 hr (low-capacity automatic
commercial ice makers). See chapter 3 of the March 2022 Preliminary
TSD. On November 1, 2022, DOE published a final rule that amended the
ACIM definitions and test procedure at 10 CFR part 431.132 and 431.134,
respectively (November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule), which included
definitions (i.e., portable automatic commercial ice maker and
refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker) and test
requirements for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. 87 FR
65856. As a result, DOE is proposing in this document to establish
energy conservation standards for ice makers with capacity of 50 lb
ice/24 hr or less, including portable and refrigerated storage ice
makers.
``Portable automatic commercial ice maker'' is defined as an
automatic commercial ice maker that does not have a means to connect to
a water supply line and has one or more reservoirs that are manually
supplied with water. 10 CFR 431.132.
``Refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker'' is defined
as an automatic commercial ice maker that has a refrigeration system
that actively refrigerates the self-contained ice storage bin. (Id.)
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment
classes analyzed in this NOPR.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their equipment complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their equipment. DOE's
current energy and condenser water conservation standards for automatic
commercial ice makers are expressed in terms of the maximum allowable
energy use and maximum allowable condenser water use (if applicable) as
a function of the harvest rate of the given equipment. (See 10 CFR
431.134.)

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information 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 an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. 10 CFR 431.4; Section 7(b)(1) (Process Rule).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique pathway proprietary technologies. 10
CFR 431.4; Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process
Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for automatic commercial ice makers, particularly
the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are
the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further
details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of
the NOPR TSD.

[[Page 30519]]

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or
class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is
technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE
determined the maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) improvements
in energy efficiency for automatic commercial ice makers, using the
design parameters for the most efficient equipment available on the
market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1.b of
this document and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (TSL), DOE projected energy savings
from application of the TSL to automatic commercial ice makers
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance
with the proposed standards (2027-2056).\17\ The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of automatic commercial ice makers purchased
in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings
attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-
standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that
reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the
absence of amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
equipment class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to
estimate national energy savings (NES) from potential amended or new
standards for automatic commercial ice makers. The NIA spreadsheet
model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy
savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed
by equipment at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE
reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings,
which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and
transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC
energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.\18\ DOE's
approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of
the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more
information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered equipment, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\19\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the
global climate crisis, among other factors. DOE has initially
determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670) was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section in this
document. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the
national NPV of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from
particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential
standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider 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 of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC
and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of the equipment
(including its installation) and the operating expense (including
energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the
lifetime of the product. The LCC

[[Page 30520]]

analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product
energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs,
product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To
account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as
equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of
values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E of this document,
DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance
of the ACIM equipment under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy
of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the
Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue.
DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in
the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule.
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for
information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards
are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of
the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE
conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may
affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K. The estimated
emissions impacts are reported in section IV.K of this document. DOE
also estimated the economic value of emissions reductions resulting
from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate
values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation
standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These analyses include,
but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the
rebuttable presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an
economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to
consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required
under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F.10 of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to automatic commercial ice makers. Separate
subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
energy conservation standards proposed in this document. The first tool
is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP

[[Page 30521]]

of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The NIA uses
a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates NES and NPV of total consumer costs and savings expected to
result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third
spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to
assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three
spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022</a>. Additionally, DOE
used output from the latest version of the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), a widely known energy
projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact
analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturer trade groups,
(3) market share, (4) inventory, and (5) technology options that could
improve the energy efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers. The
key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following
sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the
market and technology assessment.
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered equipment
(i.e., establish a separate equipment class) if DOE determines that
separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or
if DOE determines that an equipment's capacity or other performance-
related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-related
feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors
as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (Id.)
Automatic commercial ice makers are divided into equipment classes
categorized by physical characteristics that affect commercial
application, equipment utility, and equipment efficiency: (1) the ice-
making process; (2) the configuration of the ice-making and
refrigeration systems; (3) the type of condenser cooling fluid used;
and (4) the harvest rate of the unit. The following list shows the key
physical characteristics of ACIM equipment that DOE uses to distinguish
equipment classes:
(1) Ice-making process: batch, continuous;
(2) Equipment configuration: ice-making head, remote condensing
(but not remote compressor), remote condensing and remote compressor,
self-contained;
(3) Condenser cooling fluid: air-cooled, water-cooled; and
(4) Capacity range.
DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for
those equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.136, which are repeated in Table
II.1 and Table II.2.
In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Hoshizaki
commented that it does not see any need to change any of the harvest
rate ranges or combine any classes, considering that each class has its
own distinctive performance and energy ranges. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p.
2)
DOE has tentatively determined to adjust certain capacity ranges,
as presented in Table I.1 and Table I.2, based on this NOPR analysis,
as a result of proposing appropriate energy use standards across the
overall capacity range for a given type of equipment (i.e., B-IMH-W, B-
IMH-A, B-SC-A, C-SC-A). DOE reviewed the ACIM market and tentatively
determined that the adjusted capacity ranges are representative of the
energy use characteristics of each equipment type.
a. Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
DOE has tentatively determined that additional equipment classes
may be appropriate to address certain automatic commercial ice makers
available on the market. Specifically, DOE is proposing energy
conservation standards for low-capacity automatic commercial ice
makers, which are not currently subject to energy conservation
standards. DOE has tentatively determined that the low-capacity
automatic commercial ice makers can all be categorized under the self-
contained equipment configuration and air-cooled condenser cooling
fluid designation. DOE has also tentatively determined that the low
capacity of these automatic commercial ice makers would require
different energy conservation standards as compared to those already in
place for automatic commercial ice makers with higher capacities.
Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the unique operation
of refrigerated storage and portable automatic commercial ice makers
would require separate equipment classes from other self-contained,
air-cooled, low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. Based on a
review of the low-capacity ACIM market, DOE tentatively determined that
batch automatic commercial ice makers models represent nearly the
entire market and include both portable and refrigerated storage
automatic commercial ice makers. However, DOE has identified a limited
number of continuous low-capacity ACIM models available on the market
similar to batch automatic commercial ice makers, except that DOE found
no continuous refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers
available on the market. Accordingly, DOE is proposing energy
conservation standards for the proposed low-capacity ACIM equipment
classes presented in Table IV.1.

Table IV.1--Proposed Low-Capacity ACIM Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest rate (lb
Process Equipment type Condenser cooling ice/24 h) Designation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batch........................... Self-Contained.... Air............... <=50.............. B-SC-A (<=50).
Portable.......... Air............... <=38.............. B-SC-A (Portable
ACIM) (<=38).
Air............... >38 and <=50...... B-SC-A (Portable)
(>38 and <=50).
Refrigerated Air............... <=50.............. B-SC-A
Storage. (Refrigerated
Storage ACIM).

[[Page 30522]]

Continuous...................... Self-Contained.... Air............... <=50.............. C-SC-A (<=50).
Portable.......... Air............... <=50.............. C-SC-A (Portable
ACIM).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received many comments in response to the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis regarding the potential equipment classes for low-
capacity automatic commercial ice makers.
Scope of Coverage
AHAM commented that consumer stand-alone ice makers are not
automatic commercial ice makers, and the term ``commercial'' in the
ACIM category indicates an intent to cover commercial, not residential/
consumer products. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 3) AHAM added that automatic
commercial ice makers are included in EPCA part A-1 for ``Certain
Industrial Equipment'' not part A, which is for Consumer Products other
than Automobiles. (Id.) AHAM noted that automatic commercial ice makers
are ``covered equipment,'' which is defined by EPCA as ``The term
`covered equipment' means one of the following types of industrial
equipment . . . automatic commercial ice makers.'' 42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(F), and therefore, automatic commercial ice makers are, by
definition, industrial equipment. (Id.)
AHAM provided an example that commercial clothes washers are
``covered equipment,'' and that commercial and residential clothes
washers share similar construction and are often both used by
individual consumers, but these equipment classes are differentiated by
EPCA. (Id.) AHAM stated that Congress intended to include only truly
commercial ice makers under the scope of the ACIM definition and DOE
should not include consumer stand-alone ice makers in the scope of this
commercial equipment rulemaking. (Id.)
Similarly, Whirlpool stated that DOE should not include residential
appliances, which are defined as ``consumer products,'' under any
energy conservation standards and test procedures in 10 CFR part 431
and added that EPCA has delineated between consumer products regulated
under 10 CFR part 430, and commercial and industrial products regulated
under 10 CFR part 431. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 2)
AHAM and Whirlpool both commented that stand-alone ice makers that
are capable of making 50 pounds of ice per day or less more squarely
fit under the definition of consumer product, according to the
definition found in 10 CFR 430.2. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No.
26 at p. 2)
AHRI commented that DOE has already created a residential and
commercial product distinction for other types of refrigeration
equipment (such as distinguishing household refrigerators and freezers
and commercial refrigeration equipment), and that this distinction
should also apply to ice makers. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 7)
Hoshizaki commented that low-capacity models should be given their
own category and separate section to review, similar to the division
between domestic and commercial refrigerators. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p.
2)
The CA IOUs commented that although they prefer DOE not regulate
residential ice making products under the ACIM rulemaking, the energy
use of ice makers in residential freezers is certainly worthy of
regulation and testing. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 5) The CA IOUs commented
that the current DOE regulatory approach of including a universal adder
for ice makers without testing the energy use of the devices may lead
to a lack of improvements in ice-making efficiency. (Id.) The CA IOUs
recommended that, in a future refrigerator/freezer rulemaking conducted
under DOE's consumer product authority, DOE include ice making and
dispensing in the energy test cycle. (Id.)
AHRI commented that residential ice makers have much different
operating and market characteristics from other commercial ice makers.
(AHRI, No. 21 at p. 6) AHRI also noted that commercial ice makers
operate in offices and large commercial establishments and produce 50-
4,000 lb of ice, and that DOE's TSD should analyze commercial equipment
and maintain those products in scope. (Id. at pp. 6-7) AHRI commented
that DOE extending the scope beyond commercial equipment makes
providing feedback challenging. (Id. at p. 8)
Whirlpool recommended that DOE separately define ``residential ice
makers'' and exclude them from the scope of any amended ACIM standard.
(Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 4) In the alternative, Whirlpool also
recommended that DOE could make an amendment to the definition of
automatic commercial ice maker that clarifies it as ``any ice maker
which is not a consumer product, per the definition in 10 CFR 430.2.''
(Id.)
AHAM commented that consumer ice makers should be distinguished
from commercial ice makers and stated it is not appropriate under EPCA
or DOE's regulations for DOE to include them in the scope of the ACIM
rulemaking (including the test procedure and standards). (AHAM, No. 27
at p. 4)
AHAM stated that DOE makes its consumer/commercial product
determination based on distinguishing design features or
characteristics, whether the model operates in a manner that is
significantly different from models of the same product type (e.g., the
energy use or energy-efficiency characteristics are significantly
different), and the extent to which the product type can be used in a
residential application. (Id. at pp. 3-5)
Joint Commenters supported the inclusion of low-capacity automatic
commercial ice makers and evaluating potential standards for low-
capacity automatic commercial ice makers, and Joint Commenters
additionally supported the scope expansion in response to the December
2021 ACIM Test Procedure NOPR so that low-capacity ACIM efficiency and
capacity are based on a standardized test procedure. (Joint Commenters,
No. 22 at p. 1)
DOE Guidance
AHAM noted that DOE's prior guidance stated that ``consumer
products and industrial equipment are mutually exclusive categories. An
appliance model can only be considered commercial under the Act if it
does not fit the definition of `consumer product'.'' (Id. at p. 3) AHAM
added that DOE stated that it made this determination without regard to
how the model is in fact distributed, and instead looks to whether a
product is the ``type'' of product sold for personal use or consumption
by individuals. (Id.) AHAM stated that it is not consistent with EPCA
or DOE's own regulations to regulate residential stand-alone ice makers
as commercial equipment, and DOE must not include them as automatic
commercial ice makers under

[[Page 30523]]

the energy conservation standard or the applicable test procedure. (Id.
at p. 5)
The CA IOUs commented to note that the question of the proper
division between DOE's consumer and commercial authority is not a new
one, even within the refrigeration context. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 5-
6) The CA IOUs commented that in 2010, DOE issued guidance in response
to confusion regarding the scope of newly adopted residential
refrigerator regulations. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that, at that
time, DOE indicated that, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1), it would make a
determination if a product is ``of a type'' that could be sold to
consumers, specifically noting that a dorm-style refrigerator a
manufacturer marketed as a ``hotel mini-fridge'' would still be
considered a residential product. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that
furthermore, DOE made clear that industrial/commercial and consumer/
residential products must be mutually exclusive, as the statutory
definition of ``industrial equipment'' specifies that such equipment
``is not a covered [consumer] product'' under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). Thus,
the CA IOUs concluded that a product defined as residential cannot also
be commercial. (Id.)
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products
AHAM commented that the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ASRAC) working group for the miscellaneous refrigeration
products (MREF) declined to cover consumer stand-alone ice makers as
part of that rulemaking due to large differences from other products in
the MREF category and low shipments of low-capacity ice makers. (AHAM,
No. 27 at p. 2) AHAM added that it is confusing how DOE could attempt
to cover these products as consumer products in the MREF rulemaking and
then, several years later, as commercial equipment in the ACIM
rulemaking. (Id. at p. 3)
Likewise, Whirlpool commented that it supports and echoes the AHAM
positions, particularly that DOE had concluded properly in the
rulemaking for MREF to not include residential ice makers under the
scope of DOE's energy conservation standards. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p.
2) Whirlpool agreed with the ways in which AHAM described the
differences between residential ice makers made by manufacturers like
Whirlpool, and true commercial ice makers. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that DOE had previously proposed the inclusion
of these residential ice makers in the MREF Conservation Standards,
indicating DOE's previous belief that these residential ice makers meet
the definition of a consumer product and were under evaluation for
possible standards under 10 CFR part 430. (Id. at p. 3)
End Users
AHAM commented that low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers
are primarily used in residential applications, and, even if a business
chooses to purchase a residential type product, that does not mean it
is a commercial product, and added that low-capacity ice makers
designed for consumers are not the same as lower capacity ice makers
that are designed for businesses. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 5) AHAM
additionally stated one main reason low-capacity automatic commercial
ice makers do not produce as much ice as the larger commercial products
is because residential applications do not require the same amount of
ice as commercial applications that must produce ice on a daily basis
and throughout the day, as opposed to on an intermittent basis, likely
not even daily for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. (Id.)
Similarly, Whirlpool commented that there are key differences
between residential and commercial icemakers: the end-purchasers of the
products, the usage of the products, and the design of the products.
(Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 3) Whirlpool commented that the end-purchasers
of residential ice makers are consumers, whereas ice makers are
purchased by businesses and business owners. (Id.)
Scotsman commented that ice makers with production capacities under
50 pounds per day should not be considered for inclusion in the
automatic commercial ice machine category. (Scotsman, No. 30 at p. 2)
Scotsman added that the application for low production ice makers is
for residential, in-the-home installations, and those icemakers not
designed or intended to support commercial foodservice, commercial
business or retail operations. (Id. at pp. 2-3)
Portable Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
AHAM commented that portable ice makers are designed to fit on the
countertop and are not plumbed into the water supply but rely on a
reservoir, and are designed this way because they are meant to go in
residential spaces or to be moved from space-to-space within a
residence and are not intended to support a business. (AHAM, No. 27 at
p. 4) AHAM added that a refillable reservoir is not a design feature
that a commercial application would find practical or efficient because
it would require constant re-filling throughout the day, particularly
for the volume of ice required by the commercial user, whereas
residential consumers, who use far less ice, are not bothered by the
need to fill the reservoir. (Id.) AHAM commented that portable
automatic commercial ice makers are designed for a residential
application and designed to be able to move from room to room, avoiding
the need for a complex, expensive installation because they are not
plumbed into a water line. (Id. at p. 5) AHAM added that portable
automatic commercial ice makers must be compact in size, light enough
to move, and contain a water reservoir. (Id.) AHAM stated that the
portable automatic commercial ice makers only allow small amounts of
ice storage before turning the unit off. (Id.) AHAM added that portable
automatic commercial ice makers are distinct from all other products
DOE is considering under the scope of this proposed rulemaking. (Id. at
pp. 5-6) AHAM concluded that it is more likely that residential
consumers are purchasing a portable ice maker specifically for its
portability and less complex and costly installation with the intent of
using it only occasionally; thus these design differences make sense.
(Id. at p. 4)
Safety Standards
In addition, AHAM commented there are different applicable safety
standard requirements for consumer and commercial stand-alone ice-
makers, but stated that commercial icemakers are covered by UL 60335-2-
89, ``Particular Requirements for Commercial Refrigerating Appliances
and Ice-Makers with an Incorporated or Remote Refrigerant Unit or
Motor-Compressor,'' whereas residential ice makers are covered by UL
60335-2-24, ``Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances,
Ice-Cream Appliances, and Ice Makers.'' (Id. at. 6)
Sanitary Guidelines
AHAM commented that stand-alone ice makers designed for residential
use do not need to meet commercial kitchen safety and sanitary
guidelines (NSF certification/listing), which essentially prohibits the
installation of residential ice makers in commercial spaces (e.g.,
mopping the floor with certain chemicals in a commercial kitchen could
damage a residential ice maker, whereas commercial ice makers are
designed to be higher off the ground so that critical components are
shielded from liquid intrusions). (Id. at p. 6)

[[Page 30524]]

Durability Requirements
AHAM stated that consumer stand-alone ice makers do not need to
meet the same durability requirements of commercial ice makers because
they are used less frequently. (Id. at p. 6)
Warranties
AHAM stated also that consumer stand-alone ice maker warranties may
only be valid if the product is used in a residential application,
adding that many warranties are void if used in a commercial kitchen.
(Id. at p. 6)
Space Constraints
AHAM commented that undercounter ice makers are constrained by
space (countertop height and cabinet depth), whereas commercial ice
makers can be larger in height and depth. (Id. at p. 4) AHAM added that
residential ice makers are designed this way because they are designed
to fit in residential kitchens and other residential spaces, not in
commercial spaces. (Id.)
GEA stated that there are significant and definite differences
between residential and commercial ice makers, and those differences
are reflected in GEA's residential ice makers. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2)
GEA's residential ice makers are space constrained, certified to
different UL standards than commercial ice makers, sold through
traditional residential sales channels, and their warranties limit use
of the products to residential applications. (Id.) GEA's portable
icemakers are designed to fit on a standard residential depth counter.
(Id.)
Whirlpool agreed that residential ice makers are typically designed
for undercounter installation or countertop placement, whereas
commercial ice makers can be designed for a number of different
commercial installation locations, not limited to undercounter or
countertop placement. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 3)
Ice Quality
AHAM commented that low-capacity ice makers make clear, cubed ice,
and some make nugget ice depending on consumer choice, while commercial
ice makers are designed for larger capacity and higher production rates
with less focus on the quality or type of ice. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4)
Utilization Factor
GEA agreed with AHAM's comments that there are significant and
definite differences between residential and commercial ice makers and
noted that those differences are reflected in GEA's residential ice
makers. (GEA, No. 31 at p. 2). GEA recommended that the intermittent
usage for residential ice makers should be taken into account for the
standards for these products and is yet a further reason why
regulations for commercial equipment should not apply to residential
products. (Id.)
Equipment Classes
AHAM stated that it opposes DOE's decision to include the low-
capacity equipment classes (harvest rates 50 lb or less per day) to the
extent that they include consumer/residential ice makers. (AHAM, No. 27
at p. 2) AHAM added that doing so conflicts with EPCA's distinction
between consumer and commercial equipment and DOE's guidance on the
distinction between consumer and commercial equipment. (Id., p. 2)
AHRI commented that adding the proposed low-capacity ACIM equipment
classes may not be appropriate, and AHRI does not believe it is helpful
to categorize these types of ice makers in the same energy conservation
standard as automatic commercial ice makers. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs commented that DOE should perform a more in-depth
evaluation of ice machines rated at/under 50 lb/day to further support
the development of these new ACIM product classes. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at
p. 1)
Testing
AHRI added that there is a lack of laboratory capacity due to a
backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of an appropriately
verified standard (ASHRAE 29), and a lack of expertise in testing low-
capacity equipment. (AHRI, No 21 at p. 2) Hoshizaki commented that
there are no known tests for low-capacity models. (Hoshizaki, No. 20 at
p. 2) NAFEM commented that ASHRAE Standard 29-2009 provides for the
testing of equipment with capacities from 50 to 4,000 lb/24 h, and, as
it is unclear what test procedure would work for the low-capacity
models, that further analysis and explanation of these must be made so
that the applicability of the proposed test procedure can be evaluated.
(NAFEM, No. 19 at p. 2)
Examples of Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
Both AHRI and Hoshizaki commented to request examples of actual
models on the market for ``Proposed Low-Capacity Automatic Commercial
Ice Maker Equipment Classes'' B-SC-A Portable ACIM, B-SC-A Refrigerated
Storage ACIM, and B-SC-A from Tables ES.2.37 and 3.2.2. (AHRI, No. 21
at p. 11; Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 5)
NAFEM commented that it requests that DOE provide examples of
existing models available in the marketplace that DOE has determined
would fall into the two new proposed categories, as it is important for
other information in the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, such as test
procedures and shipments. (NAFEM, No. 19 at p. 2)
DOE's Response
In response to these comments, DOE notes that, although DOE's
current energy and condenser water use standards are limited explicitly
to automatic commercial ice makers with capacities between 50 and 4,000
lb/24 h (see 10 CFR 431.136), the regulatory and statutory definitions
of automatic commercial ice maker are not limited by harvest rate
(i.e., capacity). (See 10 CFR 431.132 and 42 U.S.C. 6311(19),
respectively.) DOE has noted, and commenters have confirmed,\20\ that
ice makers with harvest rates less than or equal to 50 lb/24 h (i.e.,
low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers) are available in the
market and are used in a variety of settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See Joint Commenters, No. 22 at p. 1 and
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0006-0014">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-TP-0006-0014</a> at p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPCA defines ``covered equipment'' to include certain types of
``industrial equipment,'' including automatic commercial ice makers.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)) EPCA defines ``industrial equipment'' to mean any
article of equipment referred to in subparagraph (B) \21\ of a type,
including the ACIM type, (1) which in operation consumes, or is
designed to consume, energy; (2) which, to any significant extent, is
distributed in commerce for industrial or commercial use; and (3) which
is not a ``covered product'' as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2), other
than a component of a covered product with respect to which there is in
effect a determination under 42 U.S.C. 6312(c); and this is without
regard to whether such an article is in fact distributed in commerce
for industrial or commercial use. (42 U.S.C. 6311(2))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Subparagraph (B) of 42 U.S.C. 6311(2) identifies the types
of equipment under consideration and includes automatic commercial
ice makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed, the regulatory and statutory definitions of automatic
commercial ice makers are not limited by harvest rate (see 10 CFR
431.132 and 42 U.S.C. 6311(19), respectively) and automatic commercial
ice makers are not a covered product as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291-6292.
And in the November 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE determined that
low-capacity ACIMs are distributed in commerce for commercial

[[Page 30525]]

use. 87 FR 65856, 65681. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE has tentatively
determined that low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers are, to a
significant extent, distributed in commerce for commercial use. DOE has
reviewed the low-capacity ACIM market and found that manufacturers
specifically market certain low-capacity automatic commercial ice
makers for commercial use and/or using commercial air and water ambient
rating conditions (i.e., 90 [deg]F air temperature and 70 [deg]F water
temperature, which are the same air and water ambient rating conditions
used in DOE's test procedures for automatic commercial ice makers
currently prescribed at 10 CFR 431.134),\22\ and distributors sell low-
capacity automatic commercial ice makers for commercial use, including
automatic commercial ice makers from the proposed low-capacity ACIM
equipment classes.\23\ As such, notwithstanding that low-capacity
automatic commercial ice makers may also be distributed in commerce for
personal use or consumption by individuals, low-capacity automatic
commercial ice makers meet the definition of ``industrial equipment''
and therefore are covered under the EPCA definition of ``covered
equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See <a href="http://www.scotsman-ice.com/service/Specs%20Sheets/2017/SIS-SS-CU0415_0117%20LR.pdf">www.scotsman-ice.com/service/Specs%20Sheets/2017/SIS-SS-CU0415_0117%20LR.pdf</a>; <a href="http://www.hoshizaki.com/docs/color-specs/AM-50BAJ-">www.hoshizaki.com/docs/color-specs/AM-50BAJ-</a>(AD)DS.pdf; <a href="http://www.hoshizaki.com/docs/color-specs/IM-50BAA-Q.pdf">www.hoshizaki.com/docs/color-specs/IM-50BAA-Q.pdf</a>;
<a href="http://www.hoshizaki.com/docs/color-specs/C-80BAJ-">www.hoshizaki.com/docs/color-specs/C-80BAJ-</a>(AD)DS.pdf;
<a href="http://www.manitowocice.com/asset/?id=qsoqru&regions=us&prefLang=en">www.manitowocice.com/asset/?id=qsoqru&regions=us&prefLang=en</a>;
<a href="http://www.scotsman-ice.com/service/Specs%20Sheets/2018/SIS-SS-CU-CU50_0118%20LR.pdf">www.scotsman-ice.com/service/Specs%20Sheets/2018/SIS-SS-CU-CU50_0118%20LR.pdf</a>;<a href="http://iom-stage.azurewebsites.net/getattachment/b06fdb7c-aaaa-4e5b-b5a6-b091e657a0d3/UCG060A-Spec-Sheet">iom-stage.azurewebsites.net/getattachment/b06fdb7c-aaaa-4e5b-b5a6-b091e657a0d3/UCG060A-Spec-Sheet</a>; and
<a href="http://www.summitappliance.com/catalog/model/BIM44GCSS">www.summitappliance.com/catalog/model/BIM44GCSS</a>.
\23\ See <a href="http://www.katom.com/cat/countertop-ice-makers.html?brand=Danby">www.katom.com/cat/countertop-ice-makers.html?brand=Danby</a>; <a href="http://www.katom.com/cat/undercounter-ice-makers.html?suggested_use=Commercial&production_range_lb%2Fday=1%20-%2099%20lbs">www.katom.com/cat/undercounter-ice-makers.html?suggested_use=Commercial&production_range_lb%2Fday=1%20-%2099%20lbs</a>; <a href="http://www.ckitchen.com/313767/ice-machine-with-bin.html?filter=type-of-cooling:air-cooled">www.ckitchen.com/313767/ice-machine-with-bin.html?filter=type-of-cooling:air-cooled</a>;4-hr-production:10-50lbs;
www.webstaurantstore.com/13283/undercounter-ice-
machines.html?filter=24-hour-ice-yield:38~102-pounds; and
<a href="http://www.staples.com/ice+maker/directory_ice%2520maker">www.staples.com/ice+maker/directory_ice%2520maker</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE had previously considered test procedures for low-capacity
automatic commercial ice makers in a test procedures NOPR for MREFs. 79
FR 74894 (Dec. 16, 2014). During the December 2014 MREF Test Procedure
NOPR public meeting, True Manufacturing commented that there are very
few differences between ice makers with harvest rates less than 50 lb/
24 h and those with harvest rates greater than 50 lb/24 h. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0029-0014 at p. 31) In a
supplemental notice of proposed determination regarding MREF coverage,
DOE noted that a working group established to consider test procedures
and standards for MREFs made two observations: (1) ice makers are
fundamentally different from the other product categories considered as
MREFs; and (2) ice makers are covered as commercial equipment and there
is no clear differentiation between consumer and commercial ice makers.
81 FR 11454, 11456 (Mar. 4, 2016). In a 2016 final notice of proposed
determination, DOE determined that ice makers were significantly
different from the other product categories considered, and ice makers
were not included in the scope of coverage or test procedure for MREFs.
81 FR 46767, 46773 (July 18, 2016).
To this end, DOE is proposing to establish equipment classes for
specific low-capacity ACIM categories because they have different
capacity, unique consumer utility features, and different inherent
energy use than other categories of automatic commercial ice makers.
DOE is also proposing to establish energy conservation standards
for low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers. DOE has tentatively
determined that all low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers are
self-contained and have air-cooled condensers. DOE has also tentatively
determined that the low-capacity of these automatic commercial ice
makers would require different energy conservation standards as
compared to those already in place for automatic commercial ice makers
with higher capacities. Additionally, DOE has initially determined that
the unique operation of refrigerated storage and portable automatic
commercial ice makers would require separate equipment classes from
other self-contained, air-cooled low-capacity automatic commercial ice
makers.
Based on a review of the low-capacity ACIM market, DOE observed
that both batch and continuous designs are available in the market,
although DOE found no evidence of continuous refrigerated storage
automatic commercial ice makers.
DOE requests comments on its proposal to establish equipment
classes and energy conservation standards for low-capacity ACIM
categories.
Refrigerated Storage Automatic Commercial Ice Makers
Typical self-contained automatic commercial ice makers have an ice
storage bin that is insulated but provides no active refrigeration. As
a result, the ice melts slowly to balance the bin's thermal load, and
the ice maker must periodically replenish the melted ice. Conversely,
some self-contained low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers
feature a refrigerated storage bin that prevents melting of the stored
ice. Because of the different refrigeration system components,
automatic commercial ice makers with a refrigerated storage bin (i.e.,
refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers) have different
energy use characteristics than automatic commercial ice makers without
refrigerated storage. An example of a refrigerated storage automatic
commercial ice maker is the Whynter UIM-155.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See <a href="http://www.whynter.com/product/uim-155/">www.whynter.com/product/uim-155/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs
recommended that DOE clarify the distinction between the refrigerated
storage product class and residential freezers with built-in icemakers.
(CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that the new
refrigerated storage class uses the same design for the ice freezing
mechanism as residential freezers, and it has similar production
capacities (i.e., 3-6 lb/day). (Id. at p. 4) The CA IOUs recommended
that DOE should provide a more precise definition to avoid
unintentionally bringing within the scope of the ACIM rulemaking any
residential freezers currently regulated by DOE under 10 CFR 430.32(a).
(Id.) The CA IOUs also suggested that DOE consider including in the
definition of refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers that
these units do not provide any interior or door shelving storage (i.e.,
they store only ice as the ice bin fills most of the interior volume).
(Id. at p. 5)
The definition of ``Freezer'' at 10 CFR 430.2 includes a provision
that excludes ``any refrigerated cabinet that consists solely of an
automatic ice maker and an ice storage bin arranged so that operation
of the automatic icemaker fills the bin to its capacity.''
Based on comments received in response to the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis, DOE is proposing to amend the definition to
better differentiate refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice
makers from freezers as follows:
``Refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker'' means an
automatic commercial ice maker that has a refrigeration system that
actively refrigerates the self-contained ice storage bin and for which
there is no internal storage space other than the ice storage bin that
holds the produced ice.

[[Page 30526]]

DOE requests comments on its proposal to amend the definition of
refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice maker.
2. Manufacturer Trade Groups
Whirlpool commented that the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis TSD
did not appear to include analysis of residential ice makers.
Specifically, Whirlpool noted that AHAM was not listed as an impacted
manufacturer trade group, nor were Whirlpool or other residential ice
maker manufacturers listed as potentially-impacted manufacturers in
chapter 3 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD. (Whirlpool, No. 26 at p.
3) AHAM suggested that the MIA should include manufacturers of
residential products, and that DOE should include these manufacturers
in its manufacturer interviews. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 8)
For this NOPR, DOE updated its assessment of manufacturer trade
groups to include AHAM and its list of low-capacity ACIM equipment
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to include Whirlpool and other
relevant manufacturers. To identify additional OEMs of low-capacity
automatic commercial ice makers, DOE expanded the database used for the
March 2022 Preliminary Analysis with publicly available data aggregated
from web scraping retail websites. DOE reviewed this database and
identified fifteen OEMs of low-capacity automatic commercial ice
makers. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for a list of OEMs by equipment
category. In support of this NOPR, DOE's contractors reached out to a
range of manufacturers and interviewed manufacturers specializing in
both covered automatic commercial ice makers and low-capacity automatic
commercial ice makers.
3. Market Share
AHRI commented that it does not appear that DOE performed its
analysis of market share in Table 9.3.3 that aligns with the market
participants in section 3.2.3.2, and that, as a result, AHRI cannot
corroborate or refute the market share information because of the
different scopes of equipment. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 8)
DOE acknowledges that the analysis of ``major'' industry
participants in section 3.2.3.2 of the March 2022 Preliminary TSD
chapter 3 did not encompass low-capacity automatic commercial ice
makers as it was based on model listings in DOE's Compliance
Certification Database (CCD). For the NOPR, DOE conducted a more
comprehensive review of available low-capacity automatic commercial ice
makers using publicly available data (e.g., data aggregated from web
scraping retail websites) to estimate low-capacity manufacturer model
counts. Furthermore, DOE asked manufacturers in confidential interviews
about the ACIM equipment manufacturer landscape. See chapter 3 of the
NOPR TSD for an updated review of manufacturers offering covered
equipment and/or low-capacity ice makers.
4. Inventory
AHRI commented that Table 3.2.11 should be updated to show 2021 and
2022 inventory at an all-time low to improve the accuracy of the
analysis compared to data based on 2019 levels. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 2)
In the March 2022 Preliminary TSD, Table 3.2.11 showed the end-of-
year inventory \25\ for North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code 333415 from 2010-2019, according to the U.S. Census
Bureau's Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM).\26\ While the ASM's
reported end-of-year inventory is not an explicit input to DOE's
analysis of potential amended standards, DOE appreciates the comment
and has updated the relevant data to include the most up-to-date
information from ASM. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for additional
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ According to ASM, survey respondents report inventories
owned by their establishment, ``at cost or market as of December 31
of the survey year using generally accepted accounting practices but
before any valuation method adjustments.'' This would include
finished goods, work-in-process, and materials, supplies, fuels,
etc. Definitions and instructions for the ASM can be found online at
<a href="http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/technical-documentation/questionnaire/2021/instructions/MA_10000_Instructions.pdf">www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/technical-documentation/questionnaire/2021/instructions/MA_10000_Instructions.pdf</a> (Accessed
January 16, 2023).
\26\ U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Survey of Manufactures. (2013-
2021). Available at <a href="http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm.html">www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm.html</a> (last
accessed February 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified 20 technology options that would be expected to improve the
efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers, as measured by the DOE
test procedure and shown in Table IV.2.

Table IV.2--Technology Options for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers in the March 2022 Preliminary TSD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batch ice Continuous ice
Technology options makers makers Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressor:
Improved compressor efficiency........... X X
Alternative Refrigerants................. X X
Part load operation...................... X X
Condenser:
Increased surface area................... X X
Enhanced fin surfaces.................... X X Air-cooled only.
Increased air flow....................... X X Air-cooled only.
Increased water flow..................... X X Water-cooled only.
Brazed plate condenser................... X X Water-cooled only.
Microchannel condenser................... X X Air-cooled only.
Fans and Motors:
Higher efficiency condenser fans and fan X X Air-cooled only.
motors.
Improved auger motor efficiency.......... ............... X
Improved pump motor efficiency........... X ...............
Evaporator:
Design options that reduce energy loss X ...............
due to evaporator thermal cycling.
Design options that reduce harvest X ...............
meltage or reduce harvest time.
Larger evaporator surface area........... X X
Insulation:

[[Page 30527]]

Improved insulating material and/or X X
thicker insulation around the evaporator
compartment or sump.
Refrigeration Line:
Larger diameter suction line............. X X Remote condensing units with
remote compressor only.
Potable Water:
Reduced potable water flow............... X ...............
Drain water thermal exchange............. X ...............
Expansion Valves:
Higher Efficiency Expansion Valves....... X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received several comments in response to the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis regarding the technology assessment.
a. Compressors
The CA IOUs commented that compressor energy efficiency ratios
(EERs) and the make and model of the compressor are not listed in ice
maker manufacturers' spec sheets, and that manufacturers test
compressors according to AHRI 540, but there is no public database. (CA
IOUs, No. 18 at p. 8). The CA IOUs commented that providing a range of
EERs for compressors of all sizes will show the potential energy
savings of different compressor options. (Id.)
AHAM added that efficiency is largely driven by the compressor, but
not all compressors can be approved for hot gas bypass, which is the
typical harvest approach for batch automatic commercial ice makers.
(AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12) AHAM noted this means there are compressors
specific to this application and the market is not large enough for
compressor manufacturers to make new compressors periodically to
improve efficiency, and that if DOE were to promulgate standards,
compressor availability would be a significant concern. (Id.)
DOE considered the range of EERs for compressor sizes available for
batch and continuous automatic commercial ice makers at each of the
representative harvest rates. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for
additional details.
Alternative Refrigerants
AHAM commented that DOE's analysis includes alternative
refrigerants as possible options, and AHRI noted that not all types of
alternative refrigerants are viable options for ice makers. (Id. at p.
12) AHAM further noted that use of alternative refrigerants may further
limit the space available to include a more efficient compressor.
(Id.). AHAM added that even if the EPA approves alternative refrigerant
for ice makers, it may not necessarily be a viable design option, as
ice makers use a flooded evaporator and that limits refrigerant types.
(Id.)
AHRI commented that many of the A2L refrigerants have a high
temperature glide, which negatively impacts performance and energy
consumption, and that as a result, the ability of the ACIM industry to
respond and deliver products with A2L or natural refrigerants is
constrained. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 5)
The EPA proposed refrigerant restrictions pursuant to the AIM Act
\27\ affecting automatic commercial ice makers in the December 2022 EPA
NOPR. 87 FR 76738. Specifically, EPA proposed prohibitions for three
categories of automatic commercial ice machines (EPA's term for this
equipment): (1) stand-alone, with refrigerant charge capacities of 500
grams or lower, when using or intended to use a regulated substance or
a blend containing a regulated substance with a global warming
potential (GWP) of 150 or greater; (2) stand-alone, with refrigerant
charge capacities of more than 500 grams, when using or intended to use
any of the following: R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-428A, R-422C, R-434A, R-
421B, R-408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A, R-422D, R-421A, R-125/R-290/R-
134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-X5, R-417A, R-
438A, R-410B, R-407A, R-410A, R-442A, R-417C, R-407F, R-437A, R-407C,
RS-24 (2004 formulation), and HFC-134a; and (3) remote, when using or
intended to use any of the following: R-404A, R-507, R-507A, R-428A, R-
422C, R-434A, R-421B, R-408A, R-422A, R-407B, R-402A, R-422D, R-421A,
R-125/R-290/R-134a/R-600a (55/1/42.5/1.5), R-422B, R-424A, R-402B, GHG-
X5, R-417A, R-438A, and R-410B. Id. at 87 FR 76810-76811. The proposal
would prohibit manufacture or import of such ice makers starting
January 1, 2025, and would ban sale, distribution, purchase, receive,
or export of such ice makers starting January 1, 2026. Id. at 87 FR
76809. DOE considered the use of alternative refrigerants that are not
prohibited for automatic commercial ice makers in the December 2022 EPA
NOPR. See section IV.C.1.a and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Under subsection (i) of the AIM Act, entitled ``Technology
Transitions,'' the EPA may by rule restrict the use of HFCs in
sectors or subsectors where they are used. A person or entity may
also petition EPA to promulgate such a rule. ``H.R.133--116th
Congress (2019-2020): Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.''
<a href="http://Congress.gov">Congress.gov</a>, Library of Congress, 27 December 2020,
<a href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133">www.congress.gov/bill/116thcongress/house-bill/133</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Microchannel Condensers
The CA IOUs commented that they recommend that DOE consider the
impacts of microchannel condensers on refrigerant charge, because
microchannel condensers allow for the reduction of the refrigerant
charge compared to standard tube-and-fin condensers. (CA IOUs, No. 18
at p. 7) The CA IOUs commented that using microchannel condensers with
R-290 refrigerant will allow larger machines to use this refrigerant
and reduce their energy usage without requiring an increased charge
limit. (Id.)
DOE considered the use of microchannel condensers on ACIM
performance. See section IV.C.1.b and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for
additional details.
DOE is retaining the technology options from the March 2022
Preliminary TSD for this NOPR. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for
additional details.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:

[[Page 30528]]

(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections
6(c)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The subsequent sections include DOE's evaluation of each technology
option against the screening analysis criteria and whether DOE
determined that a technology option should be excluded (screened out)
based on the screening criteria.
DOE did not receive any comments in response to the March 2022
Preliminary Analysis specific to the screening analysis.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
DOE is retaining the screened-out technologies from the March 2022
Preliminary TSD for this NOPR (Table IV.3).

Table IV.3--Screened Out Technology Options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA criterion (X = basis for screening out)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practicability
Technology option Technological to manufacture, Adverse impacts Adverse impacts Unique- pathway
feasibility install, and on utility or on health and proprietary
service availability safety technologies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Condenser Air Flow...................................... X ................ X ............... ...............
Reduced Energy Loss Due to Evaporator Thermal Cycling............. ............... ................ ............... ............... X
Larger Diameter Remote Suction Line............................... ............... ................ X ............... ...............
Reduced Potable Water Use (<20 gal/100 lb ice).................... ............... ................ X ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Increased Condenser Air Flow
Increased condenser air flow results in increased heat transfer and
a reduced condensing temperature, which results in lower compressor
power. However, increased air flow requires increased fan input power,
offsetting some (or all) of the compressor power reduction. DOE expects
that condenser fan motors in automatic commercial ice makers are
generally sized to optimize performance of the refrigeration system,
and improved efficiency due to increased air flow may not be
technically feasible.
Additionally, increased fan sizes to allow for higher air flow
rates generally require more space for the fan motor and fan assembly.
DOE has observed that ACIM designs use the entirety of available
cabinet space, and therefore any additional component size increases
would likely require larger cabinet geometries. Because automatic
commercial ice makers are typically used in locations prioritizing
smaller equipment footprints (e.g., commercial kitchens), larger
cabinet sizes may adversely impact the availability of equipment with
current sizes at a given harvest rate.
b. Reduced Energy Loss Due to Evaporator Thermal Cycling
During the rulemaking analysis for the January 2015 Final Rule (80
FR 4646), DOE determined that one technology used by commercially
available ice makers to reduce thermal mass is proprietary. 80 FR 4646,
4674. The evaporators used by Hoshizaki America, Inc. contain
proprietary elements that would make it difficult for others to
replicate the design. Hence, DOE screened out this option because of
its proprietary status. See chapter 4 of the January 2015 Final Rule
TSD.\28\ DOE has tentatively determined that the reduced thermal mass
evaporator designs continue to contain proprietary elements, and
therefore has continued to screen this technology option from further
consideration in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Larger Diameter Remote Suction Line
Increasing the suction line diameter could be considered to reduce
suction line pressure drop for remote condenser equipment with remote
compressors. However, the reduced suction vapor velocity associated
with the approach could degrade oil return effectiveness. Remote ice
maker line sets can be installed in the field so that suction line
refrigerant runs up, down, or horizontally to the compressor; hence,
they are conservatively sized to provide adequate oil return for a wide
range of installation conditions. DOE has not considered an increase in
suction line size because of reliability concerns associated with
potential oil hold-up and compressor failure associated with larger-
diameter line sets.
d. Reduced Potable Water Use (<20 gal/100 lb ice)
One purpose of water drained from batch ice makers is to remove
dissolved solids that enter with the potable water supply. Selecting
excessively low potable water levels can lead to insufficient removal
of dissolved solids, resulting in increased maintenance costs

[[Page 30529]]

associated with an increased need for descaling operations, and, after
the ice maker has operated for a number of cycles, the scale build-up
can reduce ice production and increase energy use. Additionally,
insufficient drain water may adversely impact ice quality.
In the January 2015 Final Rule analysis, DOE considered decreases
in potable water flow down to 20 gal/100 lb ice to ensure proper
drainage of particulates from the sump, based on feedback from
stakeholders. See chapter 5 of the January 2015 Final Rule
analysis.\29\ To ensure appropriate automatic commercial ice maker
operation, DOE has screened out reductions in potable water use to
levels below 20 gal/100 lb ice produced for batch ice makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.5 of
this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as
design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen
out the following technology options:

Table IV.4--Retained Design Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batch ice Continuous ice
Technology options makers makers Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressor:
Improved compressor efficiency...... X X
Alternative refrigerants............ X X
Part load operation................. X X
Condenser:
Increased surface area.............. X X
Enhanced fin surfaces............... X X Air-cooled only.
Brazed plate condenser.............. X X Water-cooled only.
Microchannel condenser.............. X X Air-cooled only.
Fans and Motors:
Higher efficiency condenser fans and X X Air-cooled only.
fan motors.
Improved auger motor efficiency..... ............... X
Improved pump motor efficiency...... X ...............
Evaporator:
Design options that reduce harvest X ...............
meltage or reduce harvest time.
Larger evaporator surface area...... X X
Insulation:
Improved insulating material and/or X X
thicker insulation around the
evaporator compartment or sump.
Potable Water:
Reduced potable water flow (as low X ...............
as 20 gal/100 lb ice).
Drain water thermal exchange........ X ...............
Expansion Valves:
Higher efficiency expansion valves.. X X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has initially determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially-available equipment or working prototypes.
DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the
other screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install,
and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility,
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of automatic commercial
ice makers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering
analysis; the selection of efficiency levels (ELs) to analyze (i.e.,
the efficiency analysis) and the determination of equipment cost at
each efficiency level (i.e., the cost analysis). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency equipment, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening
analysis. For each equipment class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as
well as the incremental cost for the equipment at efficiency levels
above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of
cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e.,
the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency level approach),
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on
the market distribution of existing equipment (in other words, based on
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds

[[Page 30530]]

the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).
In this rulemaking, DOE relies on a design-option approach,
supported with reverse engineering multiple analysis units. DOE
generally relied on test data and reverse engineering to inform a range
of design options used to reduce energy use. The design options were
incrementally added to the baseline configuration and continued through
the ``max-tech'' configuration (i.e., implementing the ``best
available'' combination of available design options).
DOE directly analyzed fifteen equipment classes, ten batch type and
five continuous type, and has selected representative units for
analysis in these classes. These equipment classes are listed in Table
IV.5 and Table IV.6. Energy testing and reverse engineering were
conducted on representative units in those equipment classes to develop
cost-efficiency relationships for potential design options to reduce
energy use. DOE has initially determined that the equipment classes
selected are representative of the ACIM market. For those equipment
classes not directly analyzed (i.e., the secondary equipment classes),
DOE represented the cost-efficiency relationship using the results for
directly analyzed equipment classes with similar design characteristics
(e.g., the analysis of the continuous, remote condensing and remote
compressor, >=800 and <4,000 equipment class is also representative of
the cost-efficiency characteristics of the continuous, remote
condensing (but not remote compressor), >=800 and <4,000 equipment
class). See Table IV.7.

Table IV.5--Batch Equipment Classes Analyzed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reverse
engineering unit,
Equipment type Condenser cooling type Harvest rate (lb/24 hours) directly analyzed
equipment class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice-Making Head.................. Water..................... >50 and <300 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=300 and <785 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>=785 and <1,500 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>=1,500 and <2,500 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=2,500 and <4,000 ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air....................... >50 and <300 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=300 and <727 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>=727 and <1,500 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>=1,500 and <4,000 ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote Condensing (but not remote Air....................... >50 and <988 ..................
compressor).
--------------------------------------------------
>=988 and <4,000 [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote Condensing and Remote Air....................... >50 and <930 ..................
Compressor.
--------------------------------------------------
>=930 and <4,000 ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained................... Water..................... >50 and <200 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=200 and <2,500 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=2,500 and <4,000 ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air....................... Portable: <=38 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>38 and <=50 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
Refrigerated Storage [check]
--------------------------------------------------
<=50 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>50 and <134 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>=134 and <200 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=200 and <4,000 [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 30531]]

Table IV.6--Continuous Equipment Classes Analyzed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reverse
engineering unit,
Equipment type Condenser cooling type Harvest rate (lb/24 hours) directly analyzed
equipment class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice-Making Head.................. Water..................... >50 and <801 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>=801 and <1,500 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=1,500 and <2,500 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=2,500 and <4,000 ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air....................... >50 and <310 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=310 and <820 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>=820 and <1,500 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=1,500 and <4,000 ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote Condensing (but not remote Air....................... >50 and <800 ..................
compressor).
--------------------------------------------------
>=800 and <4,000 ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote Condensing and Remote Air....................... >50 and <800 ..................
Compressor.
--------------------------------------------------
>=800 and <4,000 [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained................... Water..................... >50 and <900 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=900 and <2,500 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>=2,500 and <4,000 ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air....................... Portable ..................
--------------------------------------------------
<=50 ..................
--------------------------------------------------
>50 and <149 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>=149 and <700 [check]
--------------------------------------------------
>=700 and <4,000 ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV.7--Map of Secondary Classes to the Associated Directly Analyzed
Equipment Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated directly analyzed
Secondary equipment class equipment class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-IMH-W (>50 and <300).................. B-IMH-W (>=300 and <785).
B-IMH-W (>=1,500 and <2,500)............ B-IMH-W (>=785 and <1,500).
B-IMH-W (>=2,500 and <4,000)............ B-IMH-W (>=785 and <1,500).
B-IMH-A (>50 and <300).................. B-IMH-A (>=300 and <727).
B-IMH-A (>=1,500 and <4,000)............ B-IMH-A (>=727 and <1,500).
B-RC(NRC)-A (>50 and <988).............. B-RC(NRC)-A (>=988 and
<4,000).
B-RC&RC-A (>50 and <930)................ B-RC(NRC)-A (>=988 and
<4,000).
B-RC&RC-A (>=930 and <4,000)............ B-RC(NRC)-A (>=988 and
<4,000).
B-SC-A (Portable) (>38 and <=50)........ B-SC-A (Portable) (<=38).
B-SC-W (>50 and <200)................... B-SC-A (>50 and <134).
B-SC-A (>=134 and <200)................. B-SC-A (>50 and <134).
B-SC-W (>=200 and <2,500)............... B-SC-A (>=200 and <4,000).
B-SC-W (>=2,500 and <4,000)............. B-SC-A (>=200 and <4,000).
C-IMH-W (>=801 and <1,500).............. C-IMH-W (>50 and <801).
C-IMH-W (>=1,500 and <2,500)............ C-IMH-W (>50 and <801).
C-IMH-W (>=2,500 and <4,000)............ C-IMH-W (>50 and <801).
C-IMH-A (>50 and <310).................. C-IMH-A (>=310 and <820).
C-IMH-A (>=820 and <1,500).............. C-IMH-A (>=310 and <820).
C-IMH-A (>=1,500 and <4,000)............ C-IMH-A (>=310 and <820).
C-RC(NRC)-A (>50 and <800).............. C-RC&RC-A (>=800 and <4,000).
C-RC(NRC)-A (>=800 and <4,000).......... C-RC&RC-A (>=800 and <4,000).
C-RC&RC-A (>50 and <800)................ C-RC&RC-A (>=800 and <4,000).
C-SC-W (>50 and <900)................... C-SC-A (>50 and <149).
C-SC-W (>=900 and <2,500)............... C-SC-A (>=149 and <700).
C-SC-W (>=2,500 and <4,000)............. C-SC-A (>=149 and <700).
C-SC-A (>=700 and <4,000)............... C-SC-A (>=149 and <700).

[[Page 30532]]

C-SC-A (Portable)....................... B-SC-A (Portable) (<=38).
C-SC-A (<=50)........................... C-SC-A (>50 and <149).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail on the
different units analyzed.
a. Baseline Energy Use
For each equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as
a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each equipment class represents the characteristics
of equipment typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
For this NOPR, DOE considered the current standards for automatic
commercial ice makers when developing the baseline energy use for each
analyzed equipment class. In the case of equipment without current
standards (i.e., low-capacity ACIM equipment), DOE considered tested
energy use of directly analyzed units in a given proposed equipment
class to inform the development of baseline energy use.
In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, AHRI and
Hoshizaki commented that DOE's analysis should take into consideration
and incorporate refrigerants that can be used going forward, and DOE's
analysis should be updated to include A1 refrigerants that can meet the
1,500 GWP requirement. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 4; Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p.
3) AHRI and Hoshizaki also noted that R-290 is limited to 150 grams of
charge, and this refrigerant is not practical for larger capacity ice
makers so DOE should be mindful of what percentage of machines can use
R-290 under the regulations and building codes currently in place.
(AHRI, No. 21 at p. 4; Hoshizaki, No. 20 at p. 4)
AHAM commented additionally that DOE has not accounted for the
European Union's F-Gas rule and Canadian regulatory developments on
refrigerant. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12)
AHRI added that DOE must also consider the impact of EPA
regulations on lower GWP refrigerants on the ACIM industry, which can
have a negative impact on equipment performance, energy consumption,
and cost. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 4) AHRI added its members that have been
testing the efficiency of alternative refrigerants and found these low
GWP refrigerants can decrease ACIM equipment efficiency by 10 percent,
depending on refrigerant and application. (Id.)
As recommended by stakeholders, DOE is considering the impact of
the December 2022 EPA NOPR in this NOPR. The proposed date of the ban
of manufacture or import of refrigerants prohibited in automatic
commercial ice makers is at least 2 years earlier than the expected
compliance date for any amended ACIM standards associated with the
proposals in this document. Hence, the proposed refrigerant
prohibitions listed in the December 2022 EPA NOPR are assumed to be
enacted for the purpose of DOE's analysis in support of this NOPR. DOE
acknowledges that the European Union and Canada have requirements that
prohibit certain refrigerants but notes that the December 2022 EPA NOPR
will require certain refrigerant prohibitions for automatic commercial
ice makers in the United States.
Refrigerants not prohibited from use in automatic commercial ice
makers in the December 2022 EPA NOPR are presumed to be permitted for
use in automatic commercial ice makers. However, EPA has not yet listed
all such potential refrigerants or use conditions as acceptable for use
in automatic commercial ice makers.\30\ For example, EPA currently
lists R-290 as acceptable with use conditions for a refrigerant charge
of up to 150 grams in automatic commercial ice makers with non-remote
condensers, but DOE expects that EPA will increase the allowable charge
to 500 grams to harmonize with the maximum charge quantity allowed by
industry safety standards \31\ and to be consistent with the December
2022 EPA NOPR (i.e., prohibitions for stand-alone, or non-remote
condensing, automatic commercial ice makers with refrigerant charge
capacities of 500 grams or lower, when using or intended to use a
regulated substance or a blend containing a regulated substance with a
GWP of 150 or greater).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ See <a href="http://www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-commercial-ice-machines">www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-commercial-ice-machines</a>.
\31\ UL Standard 60335-2-89, Edition 2, published on October 27,
2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on feedback received during manufacturer interviews, public
comments,\32\ and certified ACIM models,\33\ DOE understands that
automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates of up to 500 lb ice/
24 h can be produced using an R-290 charge up to 150 grams. Based on
feedback received during manufacturer interviews, DOE expects that non-
remote condensing ACIM harvest rates of up to 1,500 lb ice/24 h are
possible with an R-290 charge of up to 500 grams and that manufacturers
will choose R-290 (or, for lower-capacity automatic commercial ice
makers, R-600a \34\) in all ACIM models with harvest rates of up to
1,500 lb ice/24 h to comply with the December 2022 EPA NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ See <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/Hoshizaki%20Comment.pdf">www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/Hoshizaki%20Comment.pdf</a>.
\33\ See <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-commercial-ice-machines/results?formId=650720-3-4334-05-6629642&scrollTo=460&search_text=&ice_type_filter=&equipment_type_filter=&brand_name_isopen=0&harvest_rate_lbs_ice_day_filter=&refrigerant_with_gwp_filter=Lower+impact+on+global+warming&markets_filter=United+States&zip_code_filter=&product_types=Select+a+Product+Category&sort_by=harvest_rate_lbs_ice_day&sort_direction=DESC&currentZipCode=23917&page_number=0&lastpage=0">www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-commercial-ice-machines/results?formId=650720-3-4334-05-6629642&scrollTo=460&search_text=&ice_type_filter=&equipment_type_filter=&brand_name_isopen=0&harvest_rate_lbs_ice_day_filter=&refrigerant_with_gwp_filter=Lower+impact+on+global+warming&markets_filter=United+States&zip_code_filter=&product_types=Select+a+Product+Category&sort_by=harvest_rate_lbs_ice_day&sort_direction=DESC&currentZipCode=23917&page_number=0&lastpage=0</a>.
\34\ DOE expects that EPA will list R-600a as acceptable with
use conditions, similar to R-290, for use in automatic commercial
ice makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE expects that the use of R-290 or R-600a generally will improve
efficiency as compared with the refrigerants currently in use (e.g., R-
404A and R-134a), which are proposed to be prohibited by the December
2022 EPA NOPR, because R-290 and R-600a have higher refrigeration cycle
efficiency than the current refrigerants. Thus, for automatic
commercial ice makers with harvest rates of up to 1,500 lb ice/24 h
with non-remote condensers, DOE expects that the December 2022 EPA NOPR
will require redesign that will improve efficiency of these automatic
commercial ice makers. Hence, DOE proposes to use baseline levels for
automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates of up to 1,500 lb
ice/24 h with non-remote condensers, which reflect the design changes
made by manufacturers in response to the

[[Page 30533]]

December 2022 EPA NOPR that incorporates refrigerant conversion to R-
290 or R-600a to a design at the current baseline level using current
refrigerants in this NOPR. The expected efficiency improvement
associated with this refrigerant change varies by class and is
presented in Table IV.8. DOE's analysis considers that these efficiency
improvements, equipment costs, and manufacturer investments required to
comply with the December 2022 EPA NOPR will be in effect prior to the
time of compliance for the proposed amended DOE ACIM standards for
analyzed automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates of up to
1,500 lb ice/24 h with non-remote condensers.
EPA currently lists certain refrigerants as acceptable that are not
prohibited by the December 2022 EPA NOPR for non-remote condensing
automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates above 1,500 lb ice/
24 h and all remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers may use
(e.g., R-448A and R-449A). DOE expects that EPA will list as acceptable
more viable refrigerants for non-remote condensing automatic commercial
ice makers with harvest rates above 1,500 lb ice/24 h and all remote
condensing automatic commercial ice makers.
DOE reviewed public information regarding refrigerants that are not
prohibited by the December 2022 EPA NOPR for non-remote condensing
automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates above 1,500 lb ice/
24 h and all remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers may use
and found that energy use is comparable to current refrigerants.\35\
For non-remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers with harvest
rates above 1,500 lb ice/24 h and all remote condensing automatic
commercial ice makers, DOE expects that the baseline level for the NOPR
analysis is equal to the current DOE ACIM energy conservation standard
level and that equipment costs and manufacturer investments required to
comply with the December 2022 EPA NOPR will be in effect prior to the
time of compliance for the proposed amended DOE ACIM standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See <a href="http://www.ahrinet.org/analytics/research/ahri-low-gwp-alternative-refrigerants-evaluation-program?keyword=ice%20maker">www.ahrinet.org/analytics/research/ahri-low-gwp-alternative-refrigerants-evaluation-program?keyword=ice%20maker</a>.

Table IV.8--Proposed December 2022 EPA NOPR R-290 or R-600a Energy Use
Baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy use
Directly analyzed equipment class Representative reduction below
harvest rate DOE standard (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-IMH-W (>=300 and <785).............. 461 8
B-IMH-W (>=785 and <1,500)............ 1,470 7
B-IMH-A (>=300 and <727).............. 351 4
B-IMH-A (>=727 and <1,500)............ 1,331 2
B-RC(NRC)-A (>=988 and <4,000)........ 1,508 0
B-SC-A (Portable ACIM) (<=38)......... 28 9
B-SC-A (Refrigerated Storage ACIM).... 6 33
B-SC-A (<=50)......................... 22 14
B-SC-A (>50 and <134)................. 105 12
B-SC-A (>=200 and <4,000)............. 227 13
C-IMH-W (>50 and <801)................ 760 5
C-IMH-A (>=310 and <820).............. 346 9
C-RC&RC-A (>=800 and <4,000).......... 1,100 0
C-SC-A (>50 and <149)................. 144 29
C-SC-A (>=149 and <700)............... 230 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the CA IOUs
commented that they commend DOE for comparing compressor EERs and would
like to see more of this comparison for large ice makers. (CA IOUs, No.
18 at p. 7) The CA IOUs noted that all size machines could benefit from
upgraded compressor efficiencies. (Id. at p. 6) The CA IOUs commented
that these upgraded components are widely available on the market, and
that ice maker manufacturers can purchase them in high volume at a
reduced price. (Id.) The CA IOUs stated that although R-290 compressors
are currently limited to 5,000 Btu/h due to charge limits, DOE should
perform EER range analysis for R-404A compressors over 5,000 Btu/h in
order to provide complete data on compressor efficiency. (Id. at p. 8)
The CA IOUs commented that this analysis will show the range of
efficient and inefficient compressors available on the market for large
ice machines rated at more than 500 lb/day. (Id.)
AHAM commented that even though efficiency is driven largely by the
compressor, a higher efficiency compressor in and of itself does not
necessarily drive a higher efficiency ice maker because the harvest
cycle is driven by heat build-up within the system, so higher
efficiency compressors that generate less heat can have a less
efficient harvest cycle, leading to a lower overall efficiency for the
ice maker. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 12)
DOE considered compressors suitable for batch and continuous
automatic commercial ice makers based on compressors currently
available on the market. For directly analyzed classes that can use up
to 500 grams of R-290 and for which there are no R-290 compressors
currently available on the market at the compressor capacity required
for the representative harvest rate, DOE used the R-404A compressor
currently available on the market suitable for batch and continuous
automatic commercial ice makers with the highest EER to inform the R-
290 baseline in that equipment class.
In this NOPR, DOE used the equation from the March 2022 Preliminary
Analysis to account for the reduced energy use improvements of higher
efficiency compressors in batch automatic commercial ice makers because
the harvest cycle limits the potential energy savings over a whole
batch cycle because as batch automatic commercial ice makers typically
use hot gas refrigerant to release the ice cubes from the evaporator
during a harvest. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail.

[[Page 30534]]

In this NOPR, DOE did not consider additional compressor efficiency
improvements beyond the baseline because DOE expects that the
compressors currently available on the market for refrigerants used to
comply with the December 2022 EPA NOPR represent the maximum compressor
efficiency achievable for each respective equipment class.
The CA IOUs commented that the ice making mechanism for
refrigerated storage ice makers is distinct from all commercial
automatic commercial ice makers in that the ice is frozen by the air
inside the refrigerated cavity rather than the ice making mechanism.
(CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 3) The CA IOUs added that this ice making
mechanism, identified by DOE for refrigerated storage automatic
commercial ice makers, is almost identical to the ice making mechanism
in residential refrigerator/freezer combinations. (Id.) The CA IOUs
stated that DOE should base allowable energy usage consumption of
refrigerated storage ice makers on the assumption of 12.8 kWh/100 lb,
as used in the residential refrigerator/freezer rulemaking, rather than
the 44.7 kWh/100 lb that is assumed in the preliminary TSD. (Id. at p.
4) The CA IOUs commented that allowing such high energy consumption for
this product category would leave substantial energy savings
unrealized. (Id.) The CA IOUs recommended DOE select a higher
efficiency level for the refrigerated storage product class. (Id. at p.
3)
As discussed in section IV.A.1.a of this document, refrigerated
storage automatic commercial ice makers have different energy use
characteristics than automatic commercial ice makers without
refrigerated storage. For refrigerator-freezers and freezers, the
energy use associated with maintaining the cold ice storage bin
temperature is covered by the test procedure and energy conservation
standard absent consideration of energy use for making ice. In
contrast, for refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers, the
energy use required to keep the interior at freezing temperature during
active icemaking is included in the test procedure and thus must be
included in the energy conservation standards. The baseline energy use
of refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers was developed
through test data conducted in support of this proposed rulemaking.
AHRI stated that DOE's assumption that energy use values scale to
other more traditional ACIM equipment is likely not accurate and that
DOE should explain how its analysis was performed for non-
representative units. (AHRI, No. 21 at p. 9)
For those equipment classes not directly analyzed (i.e., the
secondary equipment classes), DOE represented the cost-efficiency
relationship using the results for directly analyzed equipment classes
with similar design characteristics (e.g., the analysis of the
C.RCRC.A.4000 equipment class is also representative of the cost-
efficiency characteristics of the C.RCNRC.A.4000 equipment class).
AHAM commented that DOE should test and tear down an adequate
number of residential low-capacity automatic commercial ice makers,
noting that DOE only analyzed three low-capacity units and only tore
down one. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 11-12) AHAM also commented that DOE's
energy use analysis, design options, costs, and baseline and more
efficient efficiency levels are likely inaccurate due to the limited
testing. (Id. at p. 12) Additionally, AHAM commented that due to lack
of testing of residential products, DOE's modeling does not account for
the fact that the harvest cycle is not predictable and does not lead to
predictable results. (Id. at pp. 12-13)
The CA IOUs commented that DOE could provide anonymous data on the
low-capacity units it has tested and confirm the usage scenarios for
the products to confirm they would have commercial applications. (CA
IOUs, No. 18 at p. 3)
In support of this NOPR, DOE tested and tore down seven portable
automatic commercial ice makers (five batch and two continuous), four
refrigerated storage automatic commercial ice makers (all batch), and
six low-capacity, self-contained, air-cooled automatic commercial ice
makers (four batch and two continuous) that are representative of the
low-capacity automatic commercial ice maker market.
DOE requests comments on its proposal to use baseline levels for
automatic commercial ice makers based upon the design changes made by
manufacturers in response to the December 2022 EPA NOPR.
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum
possible efficiency for given equipment.
After conducting the screening analysis described in section IV.B
of this document and chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD, DOE considered the
remaining design options in the engineering analysis to achieve higher
efficiency levels. See chapter 5 of

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on May 11, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.