# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2015-00326 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** January 28, 2015 - **Citation:** 80 FR 4646 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037] RIN 1904-AC39 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including automatic commercial icemakers (ACIM). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this final rule, DOE is adopting more-stringent energy conservation standards for some classes of automatic commercial ice makers as well as establishing energy conservation standards for other classes of automatic commercial ice makers. It has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified. DATES: The effective date of this rule is March 30, 2015. Compliance with the amended standards established for automatic commercial ice makers in this final rule is required on January 28, 2018. ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. Email: commercial_ice_makers@EE.Doe.Gov . Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mailstop GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email: Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Discussion of the Final Rule and Its Benefits A. Benefits and Costs to Customers B. Impact on Manufacturers C. National Benefits and Costs D. Conclusion II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Current Standards 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers III. General Discussion A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage B. Test Procedure C. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings E. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (Life Cycle Costs) c. Energy Savings d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy g. Other Factors 2. Rebuttable Presumption IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments A. General Rulemaking Issues 1. Proposed Standard Levels 2. Compliance Date 3. Negotiated Rulemaking 4. Refrigerant Regulation 5. Data Availability 6. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 7. Rulemaking Structure Comments B. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Equipment Classes a. Cabinet Size b. Large-Capacity Batch Ice Makers c. Regulation of Potable Water Use d. Regulation of Condenser Water Use e. Continuous Models f. Gourmet Ice Machines 2. Technology Assessment a. Alternative Refrigerants C. Screening Analysis a. General Comments b. Drain Water Heat Exchanger c. Tube Evaporator Design d. Low Thermal Mass Evaporator Design e. Microchannel Heat Exchangers f. Smart Technologies g. Motors D. Engineering Analysis 1. Representative Equipment for Analysis 2. Efficiency Levels a. Baseline Efficiency Levels b. Incremental Efficiency Levels c. IMH-A-Large-B Treatment d. Maximum Available Efficiency Equipment e. Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels 3. Design Options a. Design Options that Need Cabinet Growth b. Improved Condenser Performance c. Compressors d. Evaporator e. Interconnectedness of Automatic Commercial Ice Maker System 4. Cost Assessment Methodology a. Manufacturing Cost b. Energy Consumption Model c. Revision of NOPR and NODA Engineering Analysis E. Markups Analysis F. Energy Use Analysis G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Equipment Cost 2. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Costs a. Installation Costs b. Repair and Maintenance Costs 3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption 4. Energy Prices 5. Energy Price Projections 6. Water Prices 7. Discount Rates 8. Lifetime 9. Compliance Date of Standards 10. Base-Case and Standards-Case Efficiency Distributions 11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 12. Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period H. National Impact Analysis—National Energy Savings and Net Present Value 1. Shipments 2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases 3. National Energy Savings 4. Net Present Value of Customer Benefit I. Customer Subgroup Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model a. Government Regulatory Impact Model Key Inputs b. Government Regulatory Impact Model Scenarios 3. Discussion of Comments a. Conversion Costs b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden c. SNAP and Compliance Date Considerations d. ENERGY STAR e. Request for DOE and EPA Collaboration f. Compliance With Refrigerant Changes Could Be Difficult g. Small Manufacturers h. Large Manufacturers i. Negative Impact on Market Growth j. Negative Impact on Non-U.S. Sales k. Employment l. Compliance With 12866 and 13563 m. Warranty Claims n. Impact to Suppliers, Distributors, Dealers, and Contractors K. Emissions Analysis L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts 1. Social Cost of Carbon a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions M. Utility Impact Analysis N. Employment Impact Analysis O. Regulatory Impact Analysis V. Analytical Results A. Trial Standard Levels 1. Trial Standard Level Formulation Process and Criteria 2. Trial Standard Level Equations B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period b. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results b. Impacts on Direct Employment c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 3. National Impact Analysis a. Amount and Significance of Energy Savings b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits c. Water Savings d. Indirect Employment Impacts 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 7. Other Factors C. Conclusions/Proposed Standard VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements 3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations 4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review M. Congressional Notification VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Discussion of the Final Rule and Its Benefits Title III, Part C 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, 2 which includes the focus of this final rule: Automatic commercial ice makers (ACIM). 1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1. 2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012). Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for certain products, such as automatic commercial ice makers, shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6313(d)(4)) In accordance with these and other statutory criteria discussed in this final rule, DOE is amending energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers, 3 and new standards for covered equipment not yet subject to energy conservation standards. The amended standards, which consist of maximum allowable energy use per 100 lb of ice production, are shown in Table I.1 and Table I.2. Standards shown on Table I.1 for batch type ice makers represent the amendments to existing standards set for cube type ice makers at 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), and new standards for cube type ice makers with expanded harvest capacities up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hour period (lb ice/24 hours) and an explicit coverage of other types of batch machines, such as tube type ice makers. Table I.2 provides new standards for continuous type ice-making machines, which were not previously currently covered by DOE's existing standards. The amended standards include, for applicable equipment classes, maximum condenser water usage values in gallons per 100 lb of ice production. These new and amended standards apply to all equipment manufactured in, or imported into, the United States, on or after January 28, 2018. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(B)(i) and (3)(C)(i)) 3 EPCA as amended by EPACT 2005 established maximum energy use and maximum condenser water use standards for cube type automatic commercial ice makers with harvest capacities between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. In this rulemaking, DOE is amending the legislated energy use standards for these automatic commercial ice maker types. DOE is not, however, amending the existing condenser water use standards for equipment with existing condenser water standards. Table I.1—Energy Conservation Standards for Batch Type Automatic Commercial Icemakers [Compliance required starting January 28, 2018] Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate lb ice/24 hours Maximum energy use kilowatt-hours (kWh)/100 lb ice * Maximum condenser water use gal/100 lb ice ** Ice-Making Head Water <300 6.88—0.0055H 200—0.022H. ≥300 and <850 5.80—0.00191H 200—0.022H. ≥850 and <1,500 4.42—0.00028H 200—0.022H. ≥1,500 and <2,500 4.0 200—0.022H. ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.0 145. Ice-Making Head Air <300 10—0.01233H NA. ≥300 and <800 7.05—0.0025H NA. ≥800 and <1,500 5.55—0.00063H NA. ≥1500 and <4,000 4.61 NA. Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) Air ≥50 and <1,000 7.97—0.00342H NA. ≥1,000 and <4,000 4.55 NA. Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air <942 7.97—0.00342H NA. ≥942 and <4,000 4.75 NA. Self-Contained Water <200 9.5—0.019H 191—0.0315H. ≥200 and <2,500 5.7 191—0.0315H. ≥2,500 and <4,000 5.7 112. Self-Contained Air <110 14.79—0.0469H NA. ≥110 and <200 12.42—0.02533H NA. ≥200 and <4,000 7.35 NA. * H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). ** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. Table I.2—Energy Conservation Standards for Continuous Type Automatic Commercial Ice Makers [Compliance required starting January 28, 2018] Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate lb ice/24 hours Maximum energy use kWh/100 lb ice * Maximum condenser water use gal/100 lb ice ** Ice-Making Head Water <801 6.48—0.00267H 180—0.0198H. ≥801 and <2,500 4.34 180—0.0198H. ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.34 130.5. Ice-Making Head Air <310 9.19—0.00629H NA. ≥310 and <820 8.23—0.0032H NA. ≥820 and <4,000 5.61 NA. Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) Air <800 9.7—0.0058H NA. ≥800 and <4,000 5.06 NA. Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air <800 9.9—0.0058H NA. ≥800 and <4,000 5.26 NA. Self-Contained Water <900 7.6—0.00302H 153—0.0252H. ≥900 and <2,500 4.88 153—0.0252H. ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.88 90. Self-Contained Air <200 14.22—0.03H NA. ≥200 and <700 9.47—0.00624H NA. ≥700 and <4,000 5.1 NA. * H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). ** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. A. Benefits and Costs to Customers Table I.3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the standards set by this final rule on customers of automatic commercial ice makers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings 4 and the median payback period (PBP). 5 The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes for which customers are impacted by the new and amended standards. 4 Life-cycle cost of automatic commercial ice makers is the cost to customers of owning and operating the equipment over the entire life of the equipment. Life-cycle cost savings are the reductions in the life-cycle costs due to amended energy conservation standards when compared to the life-cycle costs of the equipment in the absence of amended energy conservation standards. 5 Payback period refers to the amount of time (in years) it takes customers to recover the increased installed cost of equipment associated with new or amended standards through savings in operating costs. Further discussion can be found in chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. Table I.3—Impacts of Today's Standards on Customers of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment class * Average LCC savings 2013$ Median PBP years IMH-W-Small-B 214 2.7 IMH-W-Med-B 308 2.1 IMH-W-Large-B ** NA NA IMH-W-Large-B-1 NA NA IMH-W-Large-B-2 NA NA IMH-A-Small-B 77 4.7 IMH-A-Large-B ** 361 2.3 IMH-A-Large-B-1 407 1.5 IMH-A-Large-B-2 110 6.9 RCU-Large-B ** 748 1.1 RCU-Large-B-1 743 0.9 RCU-Large-B-2 820 3.0 SCU-W-Large-B 550 1.8 SCU-A-Small-B 281 2.6 SCU-A-Large-B 439 2.1 IMH-A-Small-C 313 1.7 IMH-A-Large-C 626 0.7 RCU-Small-C 505 1.2 SCU-A-Small-C 290 1.5 * Abbreviations are: IMH is ice-making head; RCU is remote condensing unit; SCU is self-contained unit; W is water-cooled; A is air-cooled; Small refers to the lowest harvest category; Med refers to the Medium category (water-cooled IMH only); RCU with and without remote compressor were modeled as one group. For three large batch categories, a machine at the low end of the harvest range (B-1) and a machine at the higher end (B-2) were modeled. Values are shown only for equipment classes that have significant volume of shipments and, therefore, were directly analyzed. See chapter 5 of the final rule technical support document, “Engineering Analysis,” for a detailed discussion of equipment classes analyzed. ** LCC savings and PBP results for these classes are weighted averages of the typical units modeled for the large classes, using weights provided in TSD chapter 7. B. Impact on Manufacturers 6 6 All dollar values presented are in 2013$ discounted back to the year 2014. The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from 2015 through the end of the analysis period in 2047. Using a real discount rate of 9.2 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of automatic commercial ice makers is $121.6 million in 2013$. Under the amended standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 12.5 percent of their INPV, or approximately $15.1 million. C. National Benefits and Costs DOE's analyses indicate that the amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime energy savings for equipment purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended and new standards (2018-2047), 7 relative to the base case without amended standards, amount to 0.18 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of cumulative energy. This represents a savings of 8 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the base case. 7 The standards analysis period for national benefits covers the 30-year period, plus the life of equipment purchased during the period. In the past, DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for its national economic analysis. The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total customer savings of the amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers in 2013$ ranges from $0.430 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.942 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate 8 ). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated increased installed costs for equipment purchased in the period from 2018-2047, discounted back to the current year (2014). 8 These discount rates are used in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003), and section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs,” therein. Further details are provided in section IV.J. In addition, the amended standards are expected to have significant environmental benefits. The energy savings described above are estimated to result in cumulative emission reductions of 10.9 million metric tons (MMt) 9 of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), 16.2 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X ), 0.1 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), 47.4 thousand tons of methane (CH 4 ), 0.03 tons of mercury (Hg), 10 and 9.3 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) based on energy savings from equipment purchased over the period from 2018-2047. 11 The cumulative reduction in CO 2 emissions through 2030 amounts to 4 MMt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of over half a million homes. 9 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 U.S. short tons. Results for NO X , Hg, and SO 2 are presented in short tons. 10 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 ( AEO2014 ) Reference Case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 2013. 11 DOE also estimated CO 2 and CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 eq) emissions that occur through 2030 (CO 2 eq includes greenhouse gases such as CH 4 and N 2 O). The estimated emissions reductions through 2030 are 3.9 million metric tons CO 2 , 395 thousand tons CO 2 eq for CH 4 , and 12 thousand tons CO 2 eq for N 2 O. The value of the CO 2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO 2 (otherwise known as the social cost of carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent Federal interagency process. 12 The derivation of the SCC value is discussed in section IV.L. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, DOE estimates the net present monetary value of the CO 2 emissions reduction is between $0.08 and $1.11 billion, expressed in 2013$ and discounted to 2014, with a value of $0.36 billion using the central SCC case represented by $40.5/t in 2015. DOE also estimates the net present monetary value of the NO X emissions reduction, expressed in 2013$ and discounted to 2014, is between $2.1 and $22.0 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and between $4.2 and $43.4 million at a 3-percent discount rate. 13 12 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf . 13 DOE has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it monetizes Hg in its rulemakings. Table I.4 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from these new and amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers. Table I.4—Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Amended Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Energy Conservation Standards * Category Present value million 2013$ Discount rate (%) Benefits Operating Cost Savings 654 7 1,353 3 CO 2 at 5% dr, average 80 5 CO 2 at 3% dr, average 361 3 CO 2 at 2.5% dr, average 570 2.5 CO 2 at 3% dr, 95th perc 1,113 3 NO X Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/Ton) ** 12 7 24 3 Total Benefits † 1,027 7 1,738 3 Costs Incremental Installed Costs 224 7 411 3 Net Benefits Including CO 2 and NO X Reduction Monetized Value 803 7 1,326 3 * The CO 2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC in 2013$ in year 2015 under several scenarios. The values of $12, $40.5, and $62.4 per metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $119.0/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. ** The value represents the average of the low and high NO X values used in DOE's analysis. † Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and the 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to SCC value of $40.5/t. The benefits and costs of these new and amended standards, for automatic commercial ice makers sold in 2018-2047, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from the operation of equipment that meets the amended standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy and water, minus increases in equipment installed cost, which is another way of representing customer NPV); and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO 2 emission reductions. 14 14 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO 2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table I.4. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2018 through 2047) that yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments. Although adding the values of operating savings to the values of emission reductions provides an important perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. customer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions, whereas the value of CO 2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO 2 savings are performed with different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured over the lifetimes of automatic commercial ice makers shipped from 2018 to 2047. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of some future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 1 ton of CO 2 in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100. Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the amended standards are shown in Table I.5. (All monetary values below are expressed in 2013$.) Table I.5 shows the primary, low net benefits, and high net benefits scenarios. The primary estimate is the estimate in which the operating cost savings were calculated using the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 ( AEO2014) Reference Case forecast of future electricity prices. The low net benefits estimate and the high net benefits estimate are based on the low and high electricity price scenarios from the AEO2014 forecast, respectively. 15 Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs, the cost in the primary estimate of the standards amended in this rule is $22 million per year in increased equipment costs. (Note that DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the corresponding SCC series value of $40.5/ton in 2013$ to calculate the monetized value of CO 2 emissions reductions.) The annualized benefits are $65 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $20 million in CO 2 reductions, and $1.19 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the annualized net benefit amounts to $64 million. At a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the cost in the primary estimate of the amended standards presented in this rule is $23 million per year in increased equipment costs. The benefits are $75 million per year in reduced operating costs, $20 million in CO 2 reductions, and $1.33 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $74 million per year. 15 The AEO2014 scenarios used are the “High Economics” and “Low Economics” scenarios. DOE also calculated the low net benefits and high net benefits estimates by calculating the operating cost savings and shipments at the AEO2014 low economic growth case and high economic growth case scenarios, respectively. The low and high benefits for incremental installed costs were derived using the low and high price learning scenarios. The net benefits and costs for low and high net benefits estimates were calculated in the same manner as the primary estimate by using the corresponding values of operating cost savings and incremental installed costs. Table I.5—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers * Discount rate (%) Primary estimate* million 2013$ Low net benefits estimate * million 2013$ High net benefits estimate * million 2013$ Benefits Operating Cost Savings 7 3 65 75 62 71 68 80 CO 2 at 5% dr, average ** 5 6 6 6 CO 2 at 3% dr, average ** 3 20 20 21 CO 2 at 2.5% dr, average ** 2.5 29 28 30 CO 2 at 3% dr, 95th perc ** 3 62 60 64 NO X Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/Ton) ** 7 3 1.19 1.33 1.16 1.29 1.22 1.36 Total Benefits (Operating Cost Savings, CO 2 Reduction and NO X Reduction) † 7 3 86 97 82 92 90 102 Costs Total Incremental Installed Costs 7 3 22 23 23 24 21 22 Net Benefits Less Costs Total Benefits Less Incremental Costs 7 3 64 74 60 68 69 80 * The primary, low, and high estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices from the AEO2014 Reference Case, Low Economic Growth Case, and High Economic Growth Case, respectively. ** These values represent global values (in 2013$) of the social cost of CO 2 emissions in 2015 under several scenarios. The values of $12, $40.5, and $62.4 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $119.0 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. See section IV.L for details. For NO X, an average value ($2,684) of the low ($476) and high ($4,893) values was used. † Total monetary benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of NO X and CO 2 emissions calculated at a 3-percent discount rate (averaged across three integrated assessment models), which is equal to $40.5/ton (in 2013$). D. Conclusion Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the benefits to the nation of the amended standards (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some users of this equipment). DOE has concluded that the standards in this final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 6313(d)(4)) II. Introduction The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers. A. Authority Title III, Part C 16 of EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program covering certain industrial equipment, which includes automatic commercial ice makers, the focus of this rule. 17 16 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A-1. 17 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012). EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers that produce cube type ice with capacities between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) EPCA requires DOE to review these standards and determine, by January 1, 2015, whether amending the applicable standards is technically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A)) If amended standards are technically feasible and economically justified, DOE must issue a final rule by the same date. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(B)) Additionally, EPCA granted DOE the authority to conduct rulemakings to establish new standards for automatic commercial ice makers not covered by 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)), and DOE is using that authority in this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(A)) Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered equipment generally consists of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. For automatic commercial ice makers, DOE is responsible for the entirety of this program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each type or class of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6315(b), 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether that equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. The DOE test procedure for automatic commercial ice makers currently appears at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart H. DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended standards for covered equipment. As indicated above, any amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6313(d)(4)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) and 6313(d)(4)) DOE also may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain equipment, including automatic commercial ice makers, if no test procedure has been established for the product; or (2) if DOE determines, by rule that such standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B) and 6313(d)(4)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors: 1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the equipment subject to the standard; 2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; 4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered equipment likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the U.S. Attorney General (Attorney General), that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; 6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and 7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII) and 6313(d)(4)) EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 6313(d)(4)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 6313(d)(4)) Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6313(d)(4) Section III.E.2 presents additional discussion about the rebuttable presumption payback period. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) and 6316(a) specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered equipment that has two or more subcategories that may justify different standard levels. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of equipment for any group of covered products that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature that other equipment within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) and 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) and 6316(a)) Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c) and 6316(f)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations in accordance with the test procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d) and 6316(f). B. Background 1. Current Standards In a final rule published on October 18, 2005, DOE adopted the energy conservation standards and water conservation standards prescribed by EPCA in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) for certain automatic commercial ice makers manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. 70 FR 60407, 60415-16. These standards consist of maximum energy use and maximum condenser water use to produce 100 pounds of ice for automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. These standards appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart H, Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. Table II.1 presents DOE's current energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. Table II.1—Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Standards Prescribed by EPCA—Compliance Required Beginning on January 1, 2010 Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate lb ice/24 hours Maximum energy use kWh/100 lb ice Maximum condenser water use * gal/100 lb ice Ice-Making Head Water <500 7.8-0.0055H ** 200-0.022H.** ≥500 and <1,436 5.58-0.0011H 200-0.022H. ≥1,436 4.0 200-0.022H. Air <450 10.26-0.0086H Not Applicable. ≥450 6.89-0.0011H Not Applicable. Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) Air <1,000 8.85-0.0038H Not Applicable. ≥1,000 5.10 Not Applicable. Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air <934 8.85-0.0038H Not Applicable. ≥934 5.30 Not Applicable. Self-Contained Water <200 11.4-0.019H 191-0.0315H. ≥200 7.60 191-0.0315H. Air <175 18.0-0.0469H Not Applicable. ≥175 9.80 Not Applicable. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). * Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. ** H = harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers As stated above, EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards and water conservation standards for certain cube type automatic commercial ice makers with harvest rates between 50 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours: Self-contained ice makers and ice-making heads (IMHs) using air or water for cooling and ice makers with remote condensing with or without a remote compressor. Compliance with these standards was required as of January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) DOE adopted these standards and placed them under 10 CFR part 431, subpart H, Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. In addition, EPCA requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to determine whether to amend the standards established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1), and if DOE determines that amendment is warranted, DOE must also issue a final rule establishing such amended standards by January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(A)) Furthermore, EPCA granted DOE authority to set standards for additional types of automatic commercial ice makers that are not covered in 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1). (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(2)(A)) Additional types of automatic commercial ice makers DOE identified as candidates for standards to be established in this rulemaking include flake and nugget, as well as batch type ice makers that are not included in the EPCA definition of cube type ice makers. To satisfy its requirement to conduct a rulemaking, DOE initiated the current rulemaking on November 4, 2010 by publishing on its Web site its “Rulemaking Framework for Automatic Commercial Ice Makers.” The Framework document is available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037-0024. DOE also published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Framework document, as well as a public meeting to discuss the document. The notice also solicited comment on the matters raised in the document. 75 FR 70852 (Nov. 19, 2010). The Framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers, and identified various issues to be resolved in the rulemaking. DOE held the Framework public meeting on December 16, 2010, at which it: (1) Presented the contents of the Framework document; (2) described the analyses it planned to conduct during the rulemaking; (3) sought comments from interested parties on these subjects; and (4) in general, sought to inform interested parties about, and facilitate their involvement in, the rulemaking. Major issues discussed at the public meeting included: (1) The scope of coverage for the rulemaking; (2) equipment classes; (3) analytical approaches and methods used in the rulemaking; (4) impacts of standards and burden on manufacturers; (5) technology options; (6) distribution channels, shipments, and end users; (7) impacts of outside regulations; and (8) environmental issues. At the meeting and during the comment period on the Framework document, DOE received many comments that helped it identify and resolve issues pertaining to automatic commercial ice makers relevant to this rulemaking. DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary analyses to help review standards for this equipment. This process culminated in DOE publishing a notice of another public meeting (the January 2012 notice) to discuss and receive comments regarding the tools and methods DOE used in performing its preliminary analysis, as well as the analyses results. 77 FR 3404 (Jan. 24, 2012) DOE also invited written comments on these subjects and announced the availability on its Web site of a preliminary analysis technical support document (preliminary analysis TSD). Id. The preliminary analysis TSD is available at: www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037-0026. DOE sought comments concerning other relevant issues that could affect amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers. Id. The preliminary analysis TSD provided an overview of DOE's review of the standards for automatic commercial ice makers, discussed the comments DOE received in response to the Framework document, and addressed issues including the scope of coverage of the rulemaking. The document also described the analytical framework that DOE used (and continues to use) in considering amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers, including a description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships between the various analyses that are part of this rulemaking. Additionally, the preliminary analysis TSD presented in detail each analysis that DOE had performed for this equipment up to that point, including descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses were as follows: (1) A market and technology assessment, (2) a screening analysis, (3) an engineering analysis, (4) an energy and water use analysis, (5) a markups analysis, (6) a life-cycle cost analysis, (7) a payback period analysis, (8) a shipments analysis, (9) a national impact analysis (NIA) and (10) a preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). The public meeting announced in the January 2012 notice took place on February 16, 2012 (February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting). At the February 2012 preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary analysis TSD. Interested parties provided comments on the following issues: (1) Equipment classes; (2) technology options; (3) energy modeling and validation of engineering models; (4) cost modeling; (5) market information, including distribution channels and distribution markups; (6) efficiency levels; (7) life-cycle costs to customers, including installation, repair and maintenance costs, and water and wastewater prices; and (8) historical shipments. On March 17, 2014, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal Register (March 2014 NOPR). 79 FR 14846. In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE addressed, in detail, the comments received in earlier stages of rulemaking, and proposed amended energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers. In conjunction with the March 2014 NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the complete technical support document (TSD) for the proposed rule, which incorporated the analyses DOE conducted and technical documentation for each analysis. Also published on DOE's Web site were the engineering analysis spreadsheets, the LCC spreadsheet, and the national impact analysis standard spreadsheet. These materials are available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/29. The standards which DOE proposed for automatic commercial ice makers at the NOPR stage of this rulemaking are shown in Table II.2 and Table II.3. They are provided solely for background informational purposes and differ from the amended standards set forth in this final rule. Table II.2—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Batch Type Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate lb ice/24 hours Maximum energy use kilowatt-hours (kWh)/100 lb ice * Maximum condenser water use gal/100 lb ice ** Ice-Making Head Water <500 5.84—0.0041H 200-0.022H. ≥500 and <1,436 3.88—0.0002H 200-0.022H. ≥1,436 and <2,500 3.6 200-0.022H. ≥2,500 and <4,000 3.6 145. Ice-Making Head Air <450 7.70—0.0065H NA. ≥450 and <875 5.17—0.0008H NA. ≥875 and <2,210 4.5 NA. ≥2,210 and <2,500 6.89—0.0011H NA. ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.1 NA. Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) Air <1,000 7.52—0.0032H NA. Air ≥1,000 and <4,000 4.3 NA. Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air <934 7.52—0.0032H NA. Air ≥934 and <4,000 4.5 NA. Self-Contained Water <200 8.55—0.0143H 191-0.0315H. ≥200 and <2,500 5.7 191-0.0315H. ≥2,500 and <4,000 5.7 112. Self-Contained Air <175 12.6—0.0328H NA. ≥175 and <4,000 6.9 NA. * H = Harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). ** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. Table II.3—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Continuous Type Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment type Type of cooling Harvest rate lb ice/24 hours Maximum energy use kWh/100 lb ice * Maximum condenser water use gal/100 lb ice ** Ice-Making Head Water <900 6.08—0.0025H 160-0.0176H. ≥900 and <2,500 3.8 160-0.0176H. ≥2,500 and <4,000 3.8 116. Ice-Making Head Air <700 9.24—0.0061H NA. ≥700 and <4,000 5.0 NA. Remote Condensing (but not remote compressor) Air <850 7.5—0.0034H NA. ≥850 and <4,000 4.6 NA. Remote Condensing and Remote Compressor Air <850 7.65—0.0034H NA. ≥850 and <4,000 4.8 NA. Self-Contained Water <900 7.28—0.0027H 153-0.0252H. ≥900 and <2,500 4.9 153-0.0252H. ≥2,500 and <4,000 4.9 90. Self-Contained Air <700 9.2—0.0050H NA. ≥700 and <4,000 5.7 NA. * H = Harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours, indicating the water or energy use for a given harvest rate. Source: 42 U.S.C. 6313(d). ** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice. In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE identified nineteen issues on which it was particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties: Standards compliance dates, utilization factors, baseline efficiency, screening analysis, maximum technology feasibility, markups, equipment life, installation costs, open-vs closed loop installations, ice maker shipments by type of equipment, intermittency of manufacturer R&D and impact of standards, INPV results and impact of standards, small businesses, consumer utility and performance, analysis period, social cost of carbon, remote to rack equipment, design options associated with each TSD, and standard levels for batch type ice makers over 2,500 lb ice/hour. 79 FR 14846 at 14947-49. After the publication of the March 2014 NOPR, DOE received written comments on these and other issues. DOE also held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2014, to discuss and receive comments regarding the tools and methods DOE used in the NOPR analysis, as well as the results of the analysis. DOE also invited written comments and announced the availability of a NOPR analysis technical support document (NOPR TSD). The NOPR TSD is available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037-0061 . The NOPR TSD described in detail DOE's analysis of potential standard levels for automatic commercial ice makers. The document also described the analytical framework used in considering standard levels, including a description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships between the various analyses. In addition, the NOPR TSD presented each analysis that DOE performed to evaluate automatic commercial ice makers, including descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. DOE included the same analyses that were conducted at the preliminary analysis stage, with revisions based on comments received and additional research. At the public meeting held on April 14, 2014, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set for in the NOPR TSD. Interested parties provided comments. Key issues raised by stakeholders included: (1) Whether the energy model accurately predicts efficiency improvements; (2) the size restrictions and applications of 22-inch wide ice makers; (3) the efficiency distributions assumed for shipments of icemakers; and (4) the impact on manufacturers relating to design of icemaker models, in light of the proposed compliance date of 3 years after publication of the final rule. In response to comments regarding the energy model used in the analysis, DOE held a public meeting on June 19, 2014 in order to facilitate an additional review of the energy model, gather additional feedback and data on the energy model, and to allow for a more thorough explanation of DOE's use of the model in the engineering analysis. 79 FR 33877 (June 13, 2014). At that meeting, DOE presented the energy model, demonstrated its operations, and described how it was used in the rulemaking's engineering analysis. DOE indicated in this meeting that it was considering modifications to its NOPR analyses based on the NOPR comments and additional research and information gathering. On September 11, 2014, DOE published a notice of data availability (NODA) in the Federal Register (September 2014 NODA). 79 FR 54215. The purpose of the September 2014 NODA was to notify industry, manufacturers, customer groups, efficiency advocates, government agencies, and other stakeholders of the publication of the updated rulemaking analysis for new and/or amended energy conservation standards for automatic ice makers. The comments received since the publication of the March 2014 NOPR, including those received at the April 2014 and the June 2014 public meetings, provided inputs which led DOE to revise its analysis. Stakeholders also submitted additional information to DOE's consultant pursuant to non-disclosure agreements regarding efficiency gains and costs of potential design options. DOE reviewed additional market data, including published ratings of available ice makers, to recalibrate its engineering analysis. Generally, the revisions to the NOPR analysis as specified in the NODA include modifications of inputs for its engineering, LCC, and NIA analyses, adjustments of its energy model calculations, and more thorough considerations of size-constrained ice maker applications. The analysis revisions addressing size-constrained applications include development of engineering analyses for three size-constrained equipment categories and restructuring of the LCC and NIA analyses to consider size constraints for applicable equipment classes. DOE encouraged stakeholders to provide comments and additional information in response to the September NODA publication. This final rule responds to the issues raised by commenters for the March 2014 NOPR and the September 2014 NODA. 18 18 A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. III. General Discussion A. Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy use or by capacity or other performance-related features that justifies a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) and 6316(a)) Throughout this rulemaking, DOE's analysis has been based on a set of equipment classes derived from the existing DOE batch commercial ice maker standards, effective as of January 1, 2010 (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) and review of the existing ice maker market. These equipment classes form the basis of analysis and public comments. In this final rule, equipment class names are frequently abbreviated. These abbreviations are shown on Table III.1. Table III.1—List of Equipment Class Abbreviations Abbreviation Equipment type Condenser type Harvest rate lb ice/24 hours Ice type IMH-W-Small-B Ice-Making Head Water <500 Batch. IMH-W-Med-B Ice-Making Head Water ≥500 and <1,436 Batch. IMH-W-Large-B * Ice-Making Head Water ≥1,436 and <4,000 Batch. IMH-A-Small-B Ice-Making Head Air <450 Batch. IMH-A-Large-B * ** (also IMH-A-Large-B-1) Ice-Making Head Air ≥450 and <875 Batch. IMH-A-Extended-B * ** (also IMH-A-Large-B-2) Ice-Making Head Air ≥875 and <4,000 Batch. RCU-NRC-Small-B Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor Air <1,000 Batch. RCU-NRC-Large-B * Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor Air ≥1,000 and <4,000 Batch. RCU-RC-Small-B Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor Air <934 Batch. RCU-RC-Large-B Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor Air ≥934 and <4,000 Batch. SCU-W-Small-B Self-Contained Unit Water <200 Batch. SCU-W-Large-B Self-Contained Unit Water ≥200 and <4,000 Batch. SCU-A-Small-B Self-Contained Unit Air <175 Batch. SCU-A-Large-B Self-Contained Unit Air ≥175 and <4,000 Batch. IMH-W-Small-C Ice-Making Head Water <900 Continuous. IMH-W-Large-C Ice-Making Head Water ≥900 and <4,000 Continuous. IMH-A-Small-C Ice-Making Head Air <700 Continuous. IMH-A-Large-C Ice-Making Head Air ≥700 and <4,000 Continuous. RCU-NRC-Small-C Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor Air <850 Continuous. RCU-NRC-Large-C Remote Condensing, not Remote Compressor Air ≥850 and <4,000 Continuous. RCU-RC-Small-C Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor Air <850 Continuous. RCU-RC-Large-C Remote Condensing, and Remote Compressor Air ≥850 and <4,000 Continuous. SCU-W-Small-C Self-Contained Unit Water <900 Continuous. SCU-W-Large-C Self-Contained Unit Water ≥900 and <4,000 Continuous. SCU-A-Small-C Self-Contained Unit Air <700 Continuous. SCU-A-Large-C Self-Contained Unit Air ≥700 and <4,000 Continuous. * IMH-W-Large-B, IMH-A-Large-B, and RCU-NRC-Large-B were modeled in some final analyses as two different units, one at the lower end of the harvest range and one near the high end of the harvest range in which a significant number of units are available. In the LCC and NIA models, the low and high harvest rate models were denoted simply as B-1 and B-2. Where appropriate, the analyses add or perform weighted averages of the two typical sizes to present class level results. ** IMH-A-Large-B was established by EPACT-2005 as a class between 450 and 2,500 lb ice/24 hours. In this rule, DOE analyzed this class as two ranges, which could either be considered “Large” and “Very Large” or “Medium” and “Large.” In the LCC and NIA modeling, this was denoted as B-1 and B-2. B. Test Procedure On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule in which it incorporated by reference Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 810-2003, “Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers,” with a revised method for calculating energy use, as the DOE test procedure for this equipment. 71 FR 71340. The DOE rule included a clarification to the energy use rate equation to specify that the energy use be calculated using the entire mass of ice produced during the testing period, normalized to 100 lb ice produced. Id. at 71350. ARI Standard 810-2003 requires performance tests to be conducted according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 29-1988 (reaffirmed 2005), “Method of Testing Automatic Ice Makers.” The DOE test procedure also incorporated by reference the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-1988 (Reaffirmed 2005) as the method of test. On January 11, 2012, DOE published a test procedure final rule (2012 test procedure final rule) in which it adopted several amendments to the DOE test procedure. 77 FR 1591. The 2012 test procedure final rule included an amendment to incorporate by reference Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 19 as the DOE test procedure for this equipment. AHRI Standard 810-2007 with Addendum 1 amends ARI Standard 810-2003 to expand the capacity range of covered equipment, provide definitions and specific test procedures for batch and continuous type ice makers, provide a definition for ice hardness factor, and incorporate several new or amended definitions regarding how water consumption and capacity are measured, particularly for continuous type machines. 77 FR at 1592-93. The 2012 test procedure final rule also included an amendment to incorporate by reference the updated ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. Id. at 1613. 19 In March 2011, AHRI published Addendum 1 to Standard 810-2007, which revised the definition of “potable water use rate” and added new definitions for “purge or dump water” and “harvest water.” In addition, the 2012 test procedure final rule included several amendments designed to address issues that were not accounted for by the previous DOE test procedure. 77 FR at 1593 (Jan. 11, 2012). First, DOE expanded the scope of the test procedure to include equipment with capacities from 50 to 4,000 lb ice/24 hours. 20 DOE also adopted amendments to provide test methods for continuous type ice makers and to standardize the measurement of energy and water use for continuous type ice makers with respect to ice hardness. In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE also clarified the test method and reporting requirements for remote condensing automatic commercial ice makers designed for connection to remote compressor racks. Finally, the 2012 test procedure final rule discontinued the use of the clarified energy use rate calculation and instead required energy-use to be calculated per 100 lb ice as specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29-2009. The 2012 test procedure final rule became effective on February 10, 2012, and the changes set forth in the final rule became mandatory for equipment testing starting January 7, 2013. 77 FR 1591. 20 EPCA defines automatic commercial ice maker under 42 U.S.C. 6311(19) as “a factory-made assembly (not necessarily shipped in 1 package) that—(A) Consists of a condensing unit and ice-making section operating as an integrated unit, with means for making and harvesting ice; and (B) May include means for storing ice, dispensing ice, or storing and dispensing ice.” 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) explicitly sets standards for cube type ice makers up to 2,500 lb ice/24 hours, however, 6313(d)(2) establishes authority to set standards for other equipment types, such as those with capacities greater than 2,500 lb ice/24 hours, provided the equipment types meet the EPCA definition of an automatic commercial ice maker. The test procedure amendments established in the 2012 test procedure final rule are required to be used in conjunction with new and amended standards promulgated as a result of this standards rulemaking. Thus, manufacturers must use the amended test procedure to demonstrate compliance with the new and amended energy conservation standards on the compliance date of any energy conservation standards established as part of this rulemaking. 77 FR at 1593 (Jan. 11, 2012). C. Technological Feasibility 1. General In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis, which is based on information that the Department has gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such analysis, DOE develops a list of design options for consideration, in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of these options for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible if it is used by the relevant industry or if a working prototype has been developed. Technologies incorporated in commercially available equipment or in working prototypes were considered technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i) Although DOE considers technologies that are proprietary, it will not consider efficiency levels that can only be reached through the use of proprietary technologies ( i.e., a unique pathway), which could allow a single manufacturer to monopolize the market. Once DOE has determined that particular design options are technologically feasible, DOE further evaluates each of these design options in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts on equipment utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)-(iv) Chapter 4 of the final rule TSD discusses the results of the screening analyses for automatic commercial ice makers. Specifically, it presents the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the bases for the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE adopts (or does not adopt) an amended or new energy conservation standard for a type or class of covered equipment such as automatic commercial ice makers, it determines the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible for such equipment. ( See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1) and 6313(d)(4)) Accordingly, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for automatic commercial ice makers in the engineering analysis using the design options that passed the screening analysis. As indicated previously, whether efficiency levels exist or can be achieved in commonly used equipment is not relevant to whether they are considered max-tech levels. DOE considers technologies to be technologically feasible if they are incorporated in any currently available equipment or working prototypes. Hence, a max-tech level results from the combination of design options predicted to result in the highest efficiency level possible for an equipment class, with such design options consisting of technologies already incorporated in automatic commercial ice makers or working prototypes. DOE notes that it reevaluated the efficiency levels, including the max-tech levels, when it updated its results for the NODA and final rule. See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD for the results of the analyses and a list of technologies included in max-tech equipment. Table III.2 and Table III.3 shows the max-tech levels determined in the engineering analysis for batch and continuous type automatic commercial ice makers, respectively. Table III.2—Final Rule “Max-Tech” Levels for Batch Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment type * Energy use lower than baseline IMH-W-Small-B 23.9%, 21.5% (22-inch wide). IMH-W-Med-B 18.1%. IMH-W-Large-B 8.3% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours), 7.4% (at 2,600 lb ice/24 hours). IMH-A-Small-B 25.5%, 18.1% (22-inch wide). IMH-A-Large-B 23.4% (at 800 lb ice/24 hours), 15.8% (at 590 lb ice/24 hours, 22-inch wide), 11.8% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours). RCU-Small-B Not directly analyzed. RCU-Large-B 17.3% (at 1,500 lb ice/24 hours), 13.9% (at 2,400 lb ice/24 hours). SCU-W-Small-B Not directly analyzed. SCU-W-Large-B 29.8%. SCU-A-Small-B 32.7%. SCU-A-Large-B 29.1%. * IMH is ice-making head; RCU is remote condensing unit; SCU is self-contained unit; W is water-cooled; A is air-cooled; Small refers to the lowest harvest category; Med refers to the Medium category (water-cooled IMH only); Large refers to the large size category; RCU units were modeled as one with line losses used to distinguish standards. Note: For equipment classes that were not analyzed, DOE did not develop specific cost-efficiency curves but attributed the curve (and maximum technology point) from one of the analyzed equipment classes. Table III.3—Final Rule “Max-Tech” Levels for Continuous Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Equipment type * Energy use lower than baseline IMH-W-Small-C Not directly analyzed. IMH-W-Large-C Not directly analyzed. IMH-A-Small-C 25.7%. IMH-A-Large-C 23.3% lb ice. RCU-Small-C 26.6%. RCU-Large-C Not directly analyzed. SCU-W-Small-C Not directly analyzed. SCU-W-Large-C * No units available. SCU-A-Small-C 26.6%. SCU-A-Large-C * No units available. * DOE's investigation of equipment on the market revealed that there are no existing products in either of these two equipment classes (as defined in this final rule). Note: For equipment classes that were not analyzed, DOE did not develop specific cost-efficiency curves but attributed the curve (and maximum technology point) from one of the analyzed equipment classes. D. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from automatic commercial ice makers purchased during a 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2018-2047). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE used the NIA model to estimate the national energy savings (NES) for equipment purchased over the period 2018-2047. The model forecasts total energy use over the analysis period for each representative equipment class at efficiency levels set by each of the considered TSLs. DOE then compares the energy use at each TSL to the base-case energy use to obtain the NES. The NIA model is described in section IV.H of this rule and in chapter 10 of the final rule TSD. DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from amended standards for automatic commercial ice makers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this preamble) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. Because automatic commercial ice makers use water, water savings were quantified in the same way as energy savings. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) AEO. DOE also has begun to estimate full-fuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended by 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. DOE's approach is based on calculations of an FFC multiplier for each of the fuels used by automatic commercial ice makers. 2. Significance of Savings EPCA prohibits DOE from adopting a standard that would not result in significant additional energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) and 6313(d)(4)While the term “significant” is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended significant energy savings to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking (presented in section V.B.3.a) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA. E. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria As discussed in section III.E.1, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4) The following sections generally discuss how DOE is addressing each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. For further details and the results of DOE's analyses pertaining to economic justification, see sections IV and V of this rule. a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Commercial Customers In determining the impacts of a potential new or amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers, DOE first determines its quantitative impacts using an annual cash flow approach. This includes both a short-term assessment (based on the cost and capital requirements associated with new or amended standards during the period between the announcement of a regulation and the compliance date of the regulation) and a long-term assessment (based on the costs and marginal impacts over the 30-year analysis period). The impacts analyzed include INPV (which values the industry based on expected future cash flows), cash flows by year, changes in revenue and income, and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the potential impacts on different types of manufacturers, paying particular attention to impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of new or amended standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for new or amended standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of other DOE regulations and non-DOE regulatory requirements on manufacturers. For individual customers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard. b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (Life Cycle Costs) EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the price of the covered product that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) and 6313(d)(4) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of equipment (including the cost of its installation) and the operating costs (including energy and maintenance and repair costs) discounted over the lifetime of the equipment. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with amended standards. The LCC savings and the PBP for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base-case scenario, which reflects likely trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.G. c. Energy Savings While significant conservation of energy is a statutory requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA also requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) and 6313(d)(4)) DOE uses NIA spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected savings. For the results of DOE's analyses related to the potential energy savings, see section IV.H of this preamble and chapter 10 of the final rule TSD. d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment In establishing classes of equipment, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE seeks to develop standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the equipment under consideration. DOE has determined that none of the TSLs presented in today's final rule would reduce the utility or performance of the equipment considered in the rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and 6313(d)(4)) During the screening analysis, DOE eliminated from consideration any technology that would adversely impact customer utility. For the results of DOE's analyses related to the potential impact of amended standards on equipment utility and performance, see section IV.C of this preamble and chapter 4 of the final rule TSD. e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition EPCA requires DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from setting new or amended standards for covered equipment. Consistent with its obligations under EPCA, DOE sought the views of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). DOE asked DOJ to provide a written determination of the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from the amended standards, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii). DOE transmitted a copy of its proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOJ's response, that the proposed energy conservation standards are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition, is reprinted at the end of this rule. f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy Another factor that DOE must consider in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified is the need for national energy and water conservation. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6313(d)(4))) The energy savings from new or amended standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity may also result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how new or amended standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M. Amended standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K. DOE reports the emissions impacts from each TSL it considered, in section V.B.6 of this rule. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L. g. Other Factors EPCA allows the Secretary, in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII) and 6313(d)(4)) There were no other factors considered for this final rule. 2. Rebuttable Presumption As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 6313(d)(4), EPCA provides for a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the customer of equipment that meets the new or amended standard level is less than three times the value of the first-year energy (and, as applicable, water) savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values that calculate the PBP for customers of potential new and amended energy conservation standards. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the customer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4). The results of these analyses serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.G.12 of this rule and chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. IV. Methodology and Discussion of Comments A. General Rulemaking Issues During the April 2014 and June 2014 public meetings, and in subsequent written comments in response to the NOPR and NODA, stakeholders provided input regarding general issues pertinent to the rulemaking, such as issues regarding proposed standard levels and the compliance date. These issues are discussed in this section. 1. Proposed Standard Levels In response to the level proposed in the NOPR (TSL 3), Manitowoc commented that there are significant deficiencies in the models and cost assumptions that were used to arrive at the proposed efficiency levels and that, consequently, the selected levels are not optimal from a life-cycle cost standpoint. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 24-26) Follett commented that DOE is recommending efficiency levels that are neither technologically nor economically justified. (Follett, No. 84 at p. 8) Hoshizaki and Scotsman both recommended DOE select NOPR TSL 1 (Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 5-6; Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 Public Meeting Transcript, at p. 44-46) Scotsman stated that doing so effective 2020 is technologically feasible, economically justified, consistent with past regulations, and will save a significant amount of energy. (Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 44-46) Although the following comment regarding choosing a standard level mentioned “ELs,” efficiency levels, DOE believes Hoshizaki intended that this comment refer to “TSLs,” trial standard levels levels and DOE has interpreted the comment accordingly. Hoshizaki stated that NOPR EL1 (interpreted as TSL1) would garner similar savings as NOPR EL3 (interpreted as TSL3) while reducing the burden on the industry to meet such stringent standards in such a short amount of time. (Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 5-6) Scotsman stated that they have not identified technology combinations that are suitable for achieving any efficiency level beyond NOPR TSL 1. (Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 8b) Scotsman added that they do not have data indicating that their machines will be able to meet NOPR TSL 3 using the design options under consideration. (Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 7b) Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), commenting jointly, and a group including the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), the Alliance to Save Energy, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) (Joint Commenters) both recommended that DOE adopt a higher TSL for ACIMs. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1-2; PG&E and SDG&E, No. 89 at p. 1-2) ASAP noted that based on their review of the certification database, there are products existing on the market today that meet the proposed standard levels. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 50-52) Joint Commenters urged DOE to adopt TSL 5 for batch type equipment and TSL 4 for continuous type equipment. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 1-2) PG&E and SDG&E recommended that DOE adopt the maximum cost-effective TSL for each equipment class noting that DOE could adopt TSLs higher than TSL 3 while maintaining a net benefit to U.S. consumers. (PG&E and SDG&E, No. 89 at p. 1-2) Although the NODA only provided data regarding the updated analysis and did not propose a standard level, several interested parties provided comment regarding the appropriateness of setting the ACIM energy conservation standard at a given NODA TSL. In their written comment, Manitowoc stated that the NODA analysis was an improvement over the original NOPR analysis. Manitowoc stated that they did not believe the standard should be set at a single TSL level for all equipment classes and suggested a different TSL level for each equipment class. Although the following comments regarding specific classes mention “ELs,” efficiency levels, DOE believes Manitowoc intended that these comments apply to “TSLs,” trial standard levels and DOE has interpreted the comment accordingly. For IMH-A batch equipment with package widths less than 48 inches (the 48-inch corresponds to the 1,500 lb ice/24 hour representative capacity), Manitowoc supported an efficiency level no higher than EL 3 (interpreted as TSL3). Manitowoc suggested that DOE adopt a standard that would be limited to 5% improvement in efficiency over baseline for the IMH-A-B2 (48-inch wide) equipment. DOE believes Manitowoc's third point in the comments, citing the “IMH-small” class refers to IMH-W-Small-B, for which Manitowoc indicated that the standard level should be set no higher than EL 3 (interpreted as TSL3). Manitowoc also suggested DOE adopt standards with efficiency gains no greater than 4.7% and 3.7% efficiency gains, respectfully, for the MH-W-Large-B1 (1,500 lb ice/24 hours representative capacity) and IMH-W-Large-B2 (2,600 lb ice/24 hours representative capacity) equipment. Manitowoc suggested that DOE adopt EL 2 (interpreted as TSL2) for the RCU-NRC-B1 (1,500 lb ice/24 hours representative capacity) and RCU-NRC-B2 (2,400 lb ice/24 hours representative capacity) equipment, as well as the SCU-A-Small and SCU-A-Large equipment classes and for 22-inch IMH equipment. For the RCU-NRC-Large-B1, Manitowoc indicated that the 20 percent improvement in compressor energy efficiency ratio (EER) used in DOE's analysis for this equipment is unrealistic. For the RCU-NRC-Large-B2, Manitowoc mentioned that the increase in condenser size considered in the DOE analysis would present significant issues with refrigerant charge management. For the SCU-A-Small-B class, Manitowoc indicated that the 40% improvement in compressor EER considered in DOE's analysis is not likely to be achieved and adding a tube row to the condenser may not be possible. For the SCU-A-Large-B class, Manitowoc similarly commented that the compressor EER improvement and condenser size increases considered in DOE's analyses are unrealistic. For the 22-inch IMH equipment, Manitowoc indicated that some of the considered design options (increase in evaporator size and/or a drain water heat exchanger) would not be feasible due to the compact nature of these units. Manitowoc suggested that DOE select EL 3 (interpreted as TSL3) for IMH-A-B small and large-1 batch equipment classes (not including 48″ models), as well as the IMH-Small equipment class and all other equipment classes not specifically mentioned. (Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 1-2) Ice-O-Matic requested that DOE select NODA TSL 3. (Ice-O-Matic, No. 121 at p. 1) Scotsman suggested that DOE select NODA TSL 2. (Scotsman, No. 125 at p. 3) Hoshizaki suggested that DOE select NODA TSL 2 for batch units. (Hoshizaki, No. 124 at p. 3) ASAP encouraged DOE to adopt NODA TSL 5 for batch type remote condensing equipment and NODA TSL 4 for all other equipment classes, noting that these choices would be cost effective. (ASAP, No. 127 at p. 1) CA IOU suggested that DOE adopt the NODA TSL for each equipment class that saves the most energy and has a positive NPV. CA IOU noted that DOE could adopt a level more stringent than NODA TSL 3 for all equipment classes while maintaining a net benefit to US consumers. (CA IOU, No. 129 at p. 1) DOE understands the concerns voiced by stakeholders regarding their future ability to meet standard levels as proposed in the NOPR. DOE must adhere to the EPCA guidelines for determining the appropriate level of standards that were outlined in sections III.E.1. In this Final Rule, DOE selected the TSL that best meets the EPCA requirements for establishing that a standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 6313(d)(4)). Since the publication of the NOPR, DOE has revised and updated its analysis based on stakeholders comments received at the NOPR public meeting, comments made during the June 19 meeting, and in written comments received in response to the NOPR and NODA. These updates included changes in its approach to calculating the energy use associated with groups of design options, changes in inputs for calculations of energy use and equipment manufacturing cost, and consideration of space-constrained applications. After applying these changes to the analyses, the efficiency levels that DOE determined to be cost effective changed considerably. The NODA comments described above reveal partial industry support for the standard levels chosen by DOE in the final rule. DOE notes that much of the commentary regarding the selection of efficiency levels for the standard are based on more detailed comments regarding the feasibility of design options, the savings that these design options can achieve, and their costs. DOE response regarding many of these comments is provided in section IV.D.3. 2. Compliance Date In the March 2014 NOPR analysis, DOE assumed a 3-year period for manufacturers to prepare for compliance. DOE requested comments as to whether a January 1, 2018 effective date provides an inadequate period for compliance and what economic impacts would be mitigated by a later effective date. Following the publication of the NOPR, several manufacturers and NAFEM expressed an expected inability to meet the proposed standard levels within the three year compliance period. (Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 2-3, Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 2b, Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 2, NAFEM, No. 82 at pg. 2-3) Manitowoc and Hoshizaki both commented that a 5-year compliance period would be necessary for this rulemaking. (Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 2-3; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 2) Scotsman commented that an 8-year compliance period would be more feasible for the technology specification, R&D investment, performance evaluation, reliability evaluation, and manufacturing required for product redesign. Scotsman added that the negative economic impacts of the rule would be mitigated by a later effective date. (Scotsman, No. 85 at p. 2b-3) AHRI, Manitowoc, and NAFEM commented that a three year compliance period is not adequate for this rulemaking and that DOE should extend the compliance period to allow time for manufacturers to obtain new components. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 18; NAFEM, No. 82 at pg. 2-3; Manitowoc, No. 92 at p. 2 -3) NAFEM and AHRI commented that DOE should extend the compliance period by two years. (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 82 at pg. 2-3) AHRI and Manitowoc noted that there is a potential for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) regulations to force further product redesign and extending the compliance period would provide relief should refrigerant regulatory issues not be finalized in time. 21 (AHRI, No. 93 at p. 2; Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3) Emerson urged DOE to wait until after EPA finalizes its decision on refrigerants before starting the 3-year period given to manufacturers to meet the new standards so manufacturers can re-design for both energy efficiency and low global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants in one design cycle. (Emerson, No. 122, p. 1) 21 Details regarding EPA SNAP regulations are discussed in section IV.A.4. NAFEM stated that manufacturers will only be able to achieve energy efficiency gains up to the level of NOPR TSL 1 within the five-year compliance timeline and that the current proposal will result in the unavailability of ice makers with the characteristics, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are generally available in the U.S. (NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 2) NAFEM's comment mentions a five-year compliance timeline, although DOE proposed a three-year timeline in the NOPR. 79 FR at 14949 (March 17, 2014). Another concern amongst manufacturers was the belief that the proposed standard levels were based on technology that was currently not available. At the April 2014 NOPR public meeting, Ice-O-Matic commented that they did not believe that the technology exists to achieve the proposed standards in the allotted time frame. (Ice-O-Matic, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 33) Joint Commenters noted that, in balancing the stringency of the standards with the compliance dates and manufacturer impacts, they believe that the stringency of the standard is more important for national energy savings than the compliance dates. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 4) In response to the assertion that DOE's standard levels were not based upon currently available technologies, DOE maintains that all technology options and equipment configurations included in its NOPR reflect technologies currently in use in automatic commercial ice makers. For example, DOE considered use only of compressors that are currently commercially available and which manufacturers have indicated are acceptable for use in ice makers in confidential discussions with DOE's contractor. Moreover, the proposed standard levels are exceeded by the ratings of some products that are currently commercially available. However, the standard levels established in this final rule are significantly less stringent than the standard levels proposed in the NOPR, and a greater percentage of currently-available products already meet these efficiency levels. DOE expects that this reduction in stringency and the reduced number of products requiring redesign means that the time required for manufacturers to achieve compliance would be reduced. In response to the NODA, Scotsman, Manitowoc, NAFEM, and Ice-O-Matic all requested that the effective date for the new efficiency standard for ACIMs be extended to 5 years after the publication of the final rule. (Scotsman, No. 125 at p. 3; Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3; NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 2; Ice-O-Matic, No. 121 at p. 1) NAFEM stated that even with the more realistic assumptions presented in the NODA, manufactures still require an extended timeline to obtain new components needed to meet higher efficiency levels. In response to the request that DOE extend the compliance date period for automatic commercial ice makers beyond the 3 years specified by the NOPR, DOE notes that EPCA requires that the amended standards established in this rulemaking must apply to equipment that is manufactured on or after 3 years after the final rule is published in the Federal Register unless DOE determines, by rule, that a 3-year period is inadequate, in which case DOE may extend the compliance date for that standard by an additional 2 years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(3)(C)) DOE believes that the modifications to the analysis, relative to the NOPR, it announced in the NODA and made to the final rule will reduce the burden on manufacturers to meet requirements established by this rule, because the standard levels are less stringent and fewer ice maker models will require redesign to meet the new standard. Therefore, DOE has determined that the 3-year period is adequate and is not extending the compliance date for ACIMs. 3. Negotiated Rulemaking Stakeholders AHRI, Hoshizaki, Manitowoc, and the North American Association of Food Equipment Manufactures (NAFEM) both suggested that DOE use a negotiated rulemaking to develop ACIM standards. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 15-16; AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 128 at p. 1; Hoshizaki, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 38-39; Hoshizaki, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 124 at p. 3; Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 344-345; NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 1) NAFEM stated that a negotiated rulemaking would ensure the level of enhanced dialogue needed for DOE to effectively assess the rule's impact on end-users. (NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 2) AHRI stated that there are significant issues in the analysis, that the current direction of this rulemaking will place significant burden on the industry, and that the completion of this rulemaking under the current process will be difficult, expensive, and not timely. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 15-16) In response to the manufacturers' suggestion to use a negotiated rulemaking to develop ACIM standards, DOE notes that this issue was raised before the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) on June 6, 2014 and the ASRAC membership declined to establish a working group to negotiate a final rule for ACIM energy conservation standards. Several ASRAC members voiced concern of using ASRAC at such a late stage in the rulemaking when it would be more appropriate to raise these concerns in the normal public comment process. (See public transcript at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-013-BT-NOC-0005-0025 ) 4. Refrigerant Regulation Manitowoc noted that the EPA has proposed delisting R-404A, the refrigerant used in nearly all currently available ice makers, for commercial refrigeration applications. Manitowoc stated that while commercial ice makers are not within the current scope for the SNAP NOPR, it seems likely that ice makers could be affected by a subsequent rulemaking. (Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3) Several interested parties, including AHRI, NAFEM, Hoshizaki, Manitowoc, and Howe requested that DOE consider the hardships associated with refrigerant choice uncertainty caused by potential future EPA SNAP regulations in the analysis (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 16-18; NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 7; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 6-7; Howe, No. 88 at p. 2-3; Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 286-287; Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3) Manitowoc suggested that DOE do a sensitivity analysis that examines what would happen to life-cycle costs, etc. if manufacturers had to re-engineer twice. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 286-287) AHRI commented that the potential for SNAP rulemakings to require a refrigerant change will necessitate major redesigns just to maintain current efficiency levels. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 16-18) Manitowoc and Hoshizaki also expressed concern regarding the redesign work that would be needed if the EPA were to ban R-404A. (Manitowoc, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 286-287; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 6-7) AHRI added that the burden of the potential EPA SNAP rulemaking must be taken into account in the engineering and life-cycle cost analyses. AHRI requested that DOE put a hold on the ACIM rulemaking until after the next SNAP rollout is completed. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 16-18) AHRI also commented that the DOE should make an effort to look at refrigerants because its cost-benefit analysis is based solely on a refrigerant that may not exist three years from now. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 284-285) AHRI noted that, because low-GWP refrigerants also have lower heat transfer capability than R-404A, coil sizes may need to further increase in order to maintain the performance with other refrigerants, which could be infeasible if the proposed standards are already calling for an increased coil size for units using R-404A. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 293-294) Scotsman and Hoshizaki suggested that DOE and EPA collaborate so that both the energy conservation rulemaking and the SNAP rulemaking don't promulgate standards that are unduly burdensome. (Scotsman, No. 125 at p. 2; Hoshizaki, No. 86 at p. 6-7) Manitowoc stated that even if the EPA takes no action on ice makers in the next 3 years, the component supplier industry (compressors, expansion valves, heat exchangers, etc.) will focus its efforts on supporting the transition to hydrocarbons, HFO blends, and other acceptable refrigerants for the refrigeration industry as the volume of display case, reach-in, walk-in, and vending is significantly larger than that for commercial ice machines. (Manitowoc, No. 126 at p. 3) ASAP commented that the way that DOE is dealing with the refrigerants issue is consistent with how it has dealt with it in all other rulemakings. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 52-53) Joint Commenters commented that DOE's approach of conducting their analysis based on the most commonly-used refrigerants today is appropriate and that it does not appear that a phase-out of R-404A would negatively impact ice maker efficiency, given the fact that propane, DR-33, and N-40 all have lower GWP and similar efficiency compared to R-404A. (Joint Commenters, No. 87 at p. 4) NEEA expressed their support for DOE's current refrigerant-neutral position. (NEEA, No. 91 at p. 2) In response to these comments, DOE notes that the EPA SNAP NOPR mentioned by Manitowoc (see 79 FR 46149 (Aug. 6, 2014)) did not propose to delist the use of R-404A for ACIMs. EPA proposed to delist R-404A for certain retail food refrigeration applications including condensing units. However, ACIMs do not qualify as retail food refrigeration equipment and therefore will not be subject to SNAP regulations that pertain to retail refrigeration applications. Further, alternate refrigerants have not been proposed by the SNAP program for use in ACIMs. 22 DOE recognizes that the engineering analysis is based on the use of R-404A, the most commonly used refrigerant in ACIMs, and that a restriction of R-404A in ACIMs would have impacts on the design options selected in the engineering analysis. However, DOE cannot speculate on the outcome of a rulemaking in progress and can only consider in its rulemakings rules that are currently in effect. Therefore, DOE has not included possible outcomes of a potential EPA SNAP rulemaking in the engineering or LCC analysis. This position is consistent with past DOE rulings, such as in the 2011 direct final rule for room air conditioners. 76 FR 22454 (April 21, 2011). DOE is aware of stakeholder concerns that EPA may broaden the uses for which R-404A is phased out at some point in the future. DOE is confident that there will be an adequate supply of R-404A for compliance with the standards being finalized in today's rule, however, consistent with EO 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, DOE will prioritize its review of the potential effects of any future phase-out of the refrigerant R-404A (should there be one) on the efficiency standards set by this rulemaking. 22 EPA on July 9, 2014 proposed new alternative refrigerants for several applications, but not ACIMs. 79 FR 38811. EPA also, on August 6, 2014, proposed delisting of refrigerants for several applications, but not ACIMs. 79 FR 46126 (Aug. 6, 2014). The notice did indicate that EPA is considering whether to delist use of R-404A for ACIMs, but did not propose such action. 79 FR at 46149. DOE does not have reason to believe that EPA's SNAP proposal to delist R-404A for commercial refrigeration applications will have a deleterious impact on the availability of components for ACIMs. Although the component supplier industry may focus efforts on supporting the transition to alternative refrigerants for the commercial refrigeration industry as suggested by Manitowoc, the design options included in this final rule are based on existing component technology and do not assume an advancement in such components. Therefore, DOE believes that those components currently on the market will remain available for use by ACIM manufactures. DOE wishes to clarify that it will continue to consider ACIM models meeting the definition of automatic commercial ice makers to be part of their applicable covered equipment class, regardless of the refrigerant that the equipment uses. If a manufacturer believes that its design is subjected to undue hardship by regulations, the manufacturer may petition DOE's Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) for exception relief or exemption from the standard pursuant to OHA's authority under section 504 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR part 1003. OHA has the authority to grant such relief on a case-by-case basis if it determines that a manufacturer has demonstrated that meeting the standard would cause hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens. DOE investigated ice makers which it believes use refrigerants other than R-404A, specifically refrigerants HFC-134a and R-410A. While these refrigerants are also HFCs, their GWP is significantly lower than that of R-404A, 23 and for this reason may be less likely to be delisted for use in ice makers under future SNAP rule revisions. Based on the available information, DOE concludes that compliance challenges for these alternative refrigerants are not greater than for R-404A. Table IV.1 below presents performance data of alternative-refrigerant ice makers and compares their energy use to the energy use associated with TSL3 for their equipment class and capacity. Thirteen of these 31 ice makers meet the TSL3 level. 23 See http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/subsgwps.html. Table IV.1—Ice Makers Using Alternative Refrigerants Refrigerant Equipment class Harvest capacity rate (lb ice/24 hr) Energy use (kWh/100 lb) Energy use percent below baseline TSL3 Energy use (kWh/100 lb) HFC-134a SCU-A-Small-B 121 8.4 31.8 9.4 R-410A IMH-W-Small-B * 302 6.1 0.6 5.2 R-410A IMH-W-Small-B 305 5.2 15.1 5.2 R-410A IMH-W-Small-B 310 5.2 14.7 5.2 R-410A IMH-W-Small-B 428 4.7 13.7 5.0 R-410A IMH-W-Small-B 430 4.7 13.5 5.0 R-410A IMH-W-Small-B 494 5 1.6 4.9 R-410A IMH-W-Med-B 510 5 0.4 4.8 R-410A IMH-W-Med-B * 730 4.75 0.6 4.4 R-410A IMH-W-Med-B * 1,200 4.1 3.8 4.1 R-410A IMH-A-Small-B 222 7.5 10.2 7.3 R-410A IMH-A-Small-B 300 6.2 19.3 6.3 R-410A IMH-A-Small-B 305 6.8 11.0 6.3 R-410A IMH-A-Small-B 388 6 13.3 6.1 R-410A IMH-A-Large-B 485 6 5.6 5.8 R-410A IMH-A-Large-B 714 6.1 0.1 5.3 R-410A IMH-A-Large-B 230 7.5 9.4 6.5 R-410A IMH-A-Large-B 320 6.2 17.4 6.3 R-410A IMH-A-Large-B 310 6.8 10.5 6.3 R-410A IMH-A-Large-B 405 5.8 14.4 6.0 R-410A IMH-A-Large-B 538 6 4.7 5.7 R-410A IMH-A-Large-B 714 6.1 0.1 5.3 R-410A IMH-A-Large-B * 1,100 5.3 6.7 4.9 R-410A RCU-NRC-Small-B 724 5.4 11.5 5.5 R-410A RCU-NRC-Small-B 720 5.4 8.8 5.5 R-410A RCU-NRC-Small-B * 1,200 5 2.0 4.6 * Two ice makers with these ratings, one each for full-cube and half-cube ice. 5. Data Availability AHRI, PGE/SDG&E, and NAFEM requested that DOE make data available for stakeholder review. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 349; PG&E and SDG&E, No. 89 at p. 3; NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 2) Specifically, AHRI requested that DOE's test results be made available to manufacturers for review. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 349) NAFEM suggested that DOE identify the model and serial number of components used in the engineering analysis in order to enhance transparency. (NAFEM, No. 82 at p. 2) AHRI and Danfoss both suggested that DOE facilitate more informal dialog to discuss data and assumptions for the department to receive feedback. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at p. 342-343; Danfoss, No. 72 at p. 1-2) Danfoss recommended that DOE publish the list of all persons, companies and organizations they have contacted in regards to this rulemaking. (Danfoss, No. 72 at p. 1-2) In response to stakeholders, DOE held a public meeting on June 19 to provide stakeholders with more information about the energy modeling used in developing the NOPR analysis. 79 FR 33877 (June 13, 2014). In addition, DOE published a NODA presenting analyses revised based on stakeholder comments and additional research conducted after the NOPR. 79 FR 54215 (Sept. 11, 2014). DOE's contractor also engaged in additional discussions with manufacturers under non-disclosure agreements after publication of the NOPR in order to collect additional information relevant to the analyses. DOE generally does not publish test data to avoid revealing information about product performance that may be considered trade secrets. Also for this reason, DOE does not intend to publish the model and serial number of equipment or components obtained, tested, and reverse-engineered during the analysis. DOE also does not reveal the identity of companies and organizations from which its contractor has collected information under non-disclosure agreement. In their written response to the NODA, AHRI expressed their belief that DOE's current process in this rulemaking is not compliant with the objective of using transparent and robust analytical methods producing results that can be explained and reproduced, as required by DOE's process rule and guidelines. AHRI expressed their belief that it has been difficult to analyze and provide feedback on this rulemaking as important portions such as the energy model have not been disclosed to the public. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 6-8) AHRI and NAFEM requested that DOE publically release the FREEZE model for stakeholder review. NAFEM and AHRI stated that DOE was unable to show that the FREEZE model functioned and was unable to produce accurate results at the June 2014 public meeting. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 2-3; NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 1-2) AHRI stated that given the results of the limited runs model at the June 19th meeting, they believe that there are serious concerns about the quality and reproducibility of the information that is not in accordance with the applicable guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information disseminated to the public by the Department of Energy. AHRI added that without public release of the model, DOE cannot demonstrate sufficient transparency about the data and methods such that an independent reanalysis can be undertaken by a qualified member of the public. AHRI noted that if DOE had compelling interests that prohibit public access to the model, DOE must identify those interests and describe and document the rigorous checks it has undertaken to ensure reproducibility. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 6-8) DOE notes that stakeholders have placed great emphasis on the FREEZE model in their responses, but this model is only part of the analysis. Moreover, DOE has published output of the engineering analysis on which stakeholders have had the opportunity to comment, for both the NOPR and NODA phases. As part of the final rule documentation, DOE presents the revised engineering analysis output. Over the course of the rulemaking, DOE has attained additional information regarding the efficiency improvements associated with different design options, through public comments as well as through confidential information exchange between DOE's contractor and manufacturers. As a result the efforts made by all parties in preparing and providing this additional information, the projections of efficiency improvements associated with the design options considered in the analysis are based more on test data than theoretical analysis. For example, in the NODA and final rule analysis, the energy use reduction in a batch ice maker as a result of compressor EER improvement is based on test data provided both in written comments and through confidential information exchange. In the NOPR and the NODA phases, DOE has published engineering spreadsheets that show projected energy savings associated with specific design options for the analyses of energy use for the ice maker models representing most of the ice maker equipment classes. These results document the analysis and have allowed stakeholders to review details of the analysis as a check on accuracy. DOE's calibration of the energy use analysis results at the highest commercially-available efficiency levels, described in section IV.D.4.b, provides a check of the analysis, specifically ensuring that the group of design options required to attain these highest available efficiency levels (as predicted by the analysis) is consistent with actual equipment. The section presents examples of maximum available commercial units against which the energy use calculations are calibrated for the highest analyzed efficiency levels not using permanent magnet motors and drain water heat exchangers. DOE conducted calibration at this efficiency level because these design options are not generally used in commercially available units, thus preventing calibration with commercialized units at higher efficiency levels. These calibration comparisons, which are discussed in section IV.D.4.b and in Chapter 5 of the TSD, show (a) that the efficiency levels attainable without use of permanent magnet motors and drain water heat exchangers have not been overestimated by the analysis, and (b) the design options that are projected to be required to attain these maximum available efficiency levels are consistent with or conservative (more costly) as compared with the design options used in maximum-available ice makers that are available for purchase. DOE is not at liberty to release the FREEZE energy model to the public because it does not own the modeling tool. AHRI stated that DOE did not publically provide the information necessary for affected parties to have adequate notice and ability to comment on the results of the public meeting. AHRI stated that DOE failed to publically state a timeframe for collecting the data it has requested. AHRI added that the public statement issued after the public meeting did not indicate to whom the data should be sent. AHRI stated their belief that without the clarity of a defined comment period, or the knowledge of the next steps in the process DOE is not following its own process rule and the notice and comment requirements for federal agency rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 128 at p. 6-8) In response to AHRI's comment, DOE expressed willingness during the NOPR public meeting, subject to potential legal restrictions, to allow additional information exchange by stakeholders with DOE's contractor under non-disclosure agreement. DOE also expressed willingness to possibly publish a NODA which would allow stakeholders additional opportunity to comment. (DOE, NOPR Public Meeting Transcript, No. 70 at pp. 341-344) In general, any information exchange regarding a rulemaking is strictly limited after publication of a NOPR, in order to limit the potential for undue influence on the process from any particular interested party. DOE allowed additional information exchange with stakeholders and published a NODA to allow additional opportunity for input. 79 FR 54215 (Sept. 11, 2014). Thus, contrary to AHRI's comment, with the additional public meeting and with the issuance of the NODA, stakeholders have had several opportunities to provide input beyond the opportunities normally provided for an energy conservation standard rulemaking. 6. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAFEM stated that DOE should not issue a final rule because the revisions in the NODA did not address each issue raised in response to the NOPR analysis. (NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 1) NAFEM and AHRI both requested that the department issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) to allow manufacturers and end users enough time to address the substantial changes in the analysis made between the NOPR and NODA phases. (NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 128 at p. 2) NAFEM stated that there are many unknowns regarding the changes made in the NODA analysis and noted that DOE did not identify a technologically feasible and economically justified standard level. NAFEM also requested that DOE release the model used to determine TSL standards. (NAFEM, No. 123 at p. 1) In response to AHRI and NAFEM, DOE notes that the modifications made to the analyses in the NODA were based on stakeholder participation, and each issue raised in response to the NOPR and NODA have been addressed in this final rule. The objective of the NODA was to enable stakeholders to understand the changes made in the basic analyses as a result of input received during the NOPR phase, and DOE believes that was accomplished. Therefore, DOE does not believe that an SNOPR is necessary for this rulemaking. In response to NAFEM's request for DOE to release the model used to determine the TSL standard, DOE assumes that this refers to the FREEZE model, which is discussed in section IV.A.5. DOE is not at liberty to release the FREEZE energy model to the public because it does not own the modeling tool. Regarding NAFEM's comment concerning identification of a technologically feasible and economically justified standard level, DOE notes that the NODA did not propose a standard level. Rather the NODA's purpose was to provide stakeholders the opportunity to comment on revisions in DOE's analysis. 7. Rulemaking Structure Comments A Policy Analyst at the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center commented on basic underpinnings of the DOE energy conservation standards rulemaking process. Policy Analyst commented that DOE does not explain why sophisticated, profit-motivated purchasers of ACIMs would suffer from informational deficits or cognitive biases that would cause them to purchase products with high lifetime costs without demanding higher-price, higher-efficiency products. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 5) Policy Analyst indicated that two of the three problems identified by DOE, lack of access to information and information asymmetry, are not addressed by the rule, indicating that DOE's rule is flawed. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 6) Policy Analyst added that only one of the problems identified by DOE is addressed by any of the metrics stated in the proposed rule: Internalizing the externality of greenhouse gas emissions. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 7) Policy Analyst suggested that the proposed rule should include DOE's plans for how it will gather information to assess the success of the rule and whether its assumptions were accurate. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 8) Policy Analyst added that DOE should include a timeframe for retrospective review in its final rule. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 8) Policy Analyst stated that DOE should pay attention to the linkages between the rule and the measured outcomes in order to increase its awareness of mediating factors that may have accomplished or undermined the stated metrics absent the rule. (Policy Analyst, No. 75 at p. 8) In response, DOE believes there are two main reasons that purchasers of ACIM equipment would lack complete information, causing them to, in Policy Analyst's words, “purchase products with high lifetime costs without demanding higher-price, higher-efficiency products.” The first reason is the time involved in collection and processing of information and the second is that the available information is incomplete. ACIM purchasers have access only to information that is readily available, and would not have ready access to information about additional efficiency options that could be made available to the market. The information that is available is dispersed in many sources, and the cost of querying all information sources takes the form of time taken away from the primary business of the purchaser, whether running a hotel or provision of medical care. By virtue of simply undertaking the energy conservation standard rulemaking, DOE provides significant information to all who are interested via the analyses undertaken by the rulemaking. As the energy conservation standard rulemaking has proceeded from the initial framework phase through to the final rule phase, DOE has solicited information, purchased, examined and tested actual ACIM products, and performed numerous analyses to ensure assumptions are as accurate as possible. Once a rule is finalized, DOE continues collecting information as well as interacting with the industry, and such activities will enable DOE to measure whether the rule is achieving its intended results—namely increasing the efficiency of automatic commercial ice makers. DOE will undertake subsequent analyses of ACIM equipment in order to meet legislative requirements for reviewing the standard by a date no later than 5 years after the effective date of new and amended standards established by this rulemaking. DOE follows a standard process in energy conservation standards rulemakings, and believes as such, that establishing plans within this final rule for gathering information for the next proceeding is unnecessary. B. Market and Technology Assessment When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based pr [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2015-00326. Public record. Not legal advice.