Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines

Federal RegisterJul 31, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045]

RIN 1904-AD07

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On August 11, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test procedure for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines (beverage vending machines or BVMs). That proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for the final rule. In this final rule, DOE is reorganizing its test procedure for beverage vending machines into an Appendix A, which will be mandatory for equipment testing beginning 180 days after the final rule is published in the

Federal Register

, and an Appendix B, which will be mandatory for equipment testing to demonstrate compliance with any amended energy conservation standards arising out of DOE's ongoing BVM energy conservation standards rulemaking. Specifically, Appendix A includes amendments that update the referenced test method to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, eliminate the requirement to test at the 90 °F ambient test condition, establish a provision for testing at the lowest application product temperature, and adopt several amendments and clarifications to the DOE test procedure to improve the repeatability and remove ambiguity from the current BVM test procedure, as established by DOE in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule. Appendix B contains all the amendments included in Appendix A and, in addition, incorporates provisions to account for the impact of low power modes on measured daily energy consumption (DEC). Finally, DOE is adopting in this final rule several clarifications regarding the certification and reporting requirements for beverage vending machines.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is August 31, 2015. Compliance with Appendix A to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431 will be mandatory for representations made on or after January 27, 2016. Compliance with Appendix B to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431 will be mandatory for representations made on or after the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022). DOE will publish a document in the

Federal Register

announcing the compliance date for Appendix B to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 31, 2015.

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 regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/24.

This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this document on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

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:

Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590, Email:

refrigerated_beverage_vending_machines@ee.doe.gov.

Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777, Email:

Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule incorporates by reference into 10 CFR part 431 the testing methods contained in the following commercial standards:

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, “Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Sealed Beverages,” approved July 23, 2010.

Copies of ASHRAE standards may be purchased from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers; 1791 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, 404-636-8400, or

www.ashrae.org.

See section IV.N. for additional information on this standard.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

III. Discussion

A. Appendix A: Clarifications and Amendments to the DOE Test Procedure

1. Updating the Referenced Test Method

2. Other Minor Clarifications and Amendments to ASHRAE 32.1-2010

3. Eliminating Testing at the 90 °F Ambient Test Condition

4. Test Procedure for Combination Vending Machines

5. Loading of BVM Models When Conducting the DOE Test Procedure

6. Specifying the Characteristics of the Standard Product

7. Clarifying the Next-To-Vend Beverage Temperature Test Condition

8. Defining “Fully Cooled”

9. Placement of Thermocouples During Testing

10. Establishing Testing Provisions at the Lowest Application Product Temperature

11. Treatment of Certain Accessories During Testing

B. Appendix B: Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions To Account for Low Power Modes

1. Definitions Related to the Low Power Mode Test Procedure

2. Low Power Mode Test Method

3. Refrigeration Low Power Mode Verification Test Protocol

C. Other Amendments and Clarifications

1. Clarifications to the Scope of the BVM Regulations

2. Clarifications to Certification and Reporting Requirements

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

M. Congressional Notification

N. Description of Standards Incorporated by Reference

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

Title III, Part B

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.”

These include refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines (“beverage vending machines” or BVMs), the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(v))

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).

Because Congress included beverage vending machines in Part A of Title III of EPCA, the consumer product provisions of Part A (not the industrial equipment provisions of Part A-1) apply to beverage vending machines. DOE placed the regulatory requirements specific to beverage vending machines in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 431, “Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment” as a matter of administrative convenience based on their type and will refer to beverage vending machines as “equipment” throughout this document because of their placement in 10 CFR part 431. Despite the placement of beverage vending machines in 10 CFR part 431, the relevant provisions of Title A of EPCA and 10 CFR part 430, which are applicable to all product types specified in Title A of EPCA, are applicable to beverage vending machines. See 74 FR 44914, 44917 (Aug. 31, 2009). In this test procedure final rule, DOE is clarifying the relevant authority for beverage vending machines by modifying 10 CFR 431.291 to specify that the regulatory provisions of 10 CFR 430.33 and 430.34 and subparts D and E of 10 CFR part 430 are applicable to beverage vending machines. DOE notes that because the procedures in Parts 430 and 431 for petitioning DOE for obtaining a test procedure waiver are substantively the same (79 FR 26591, 26601(May 9, 2014)), the regulations for applying for a test procedure waiver for beverage vending machines are those found at 10 CFR 431.401 rather than those found at 430.27.

Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Secretary or the Federal Trade Commission, as appropriate, may prescribe labeling requirements for beverage vending machines. (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5)(A)) The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

EPCA requires the test procedure for beverage vending machines to be based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(15)) In addition, under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) EPCA also provides that the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) shall review test procedures for all covered products at least once every 7 years, and either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) or publish a determination in the

Federal Register

not to amend them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))

In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish the proposed test procedure and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on it. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1))

Pursuant to DOE's obligations under EPCA, DOE reviewed the BVM test procedure at 10 CFR 431.294 and determined that the test procedure could be amended to improve the accuracy of the test procedure for beverage vending machines and to incorporate new technology features. As such, on August 11, 2014, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing amendments to its test procedure (2014 BVM test procedure NOPR). 79 FR 46908. These proposed amendments were presented at the BVM test procedure NOPR public meeting held on September 16, 2014. DOE received written and verbal comments in response to the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR at the NOPR public meeting as well as throughout the comment period. The amendments adopted in this final rule respond to and reflect upon those comments.

This final rule also fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review its test procedures under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its next evaluation of this test procedure will occur in a manner consistent with the timeline set out in this provision.

DOE also reviewed the adopted amendments to determine whether they would have an impact on the measured energy consumption of covered beverage vending machines. DOE has determined that the test procedure amendments incorporating provisions to account for low power modes will change the measured energy use of beverage vending machines when compared to the current BVM test procedure, as established by DOE in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule (subsequent references to DOE's “current test procedure” for beverage vending machines in this document refer to the test procedure established by DOE in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule as it existed at 10 CFR 431.294 in the edition of 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 revised as of January 1, 2015). Therefore, DOE is considering the impacts of these changes as part of its standards rulemaking for beverage vending machines (“BVM energy conservation standards rulemaking,” Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022) and will not require use of these test procedure provisions (contained in Appendix B) until the compliance date of any amended standards set as a result of that rulemaking.

B. Background

EPCA requires the test procedure for beverage vending machines to be based on American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 32.1-2004 (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004), “Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned or Other Sealed Beverages.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(15)) In December 2006, DOE published a final rule establishing a test procedure for beverage vending machines, among other products and equipment (the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule). 71 FR 71340, 71355 (Dec. 8, 2006). In that final rule, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(15), DOE adopted ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 as the DOE test procedure, except that DOE modified ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 to require parties to test equipment with dual nameplate voltages at the lower of the two voltages only. 71 FR at 71355.

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 specifies a method for determining the capacity of vending machines, referred to as “vendible capacity,” which is

essentially the maximum number of standard sealed beverages a vending machine can hold for sale. In the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, however, DOE adopted the “refrigerated volume” measure in section 5.2, “Refrigerated Volume Calculation,” of ANSI/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) HRF-1-2004 (ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004) in addition to the “vendible capacity” measure, as referred to in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. 71 FR at 71355. DOE adopted “refrigerated volume” as the primary measure of capacity for beverage vending machines because of the variety of dispensing mechanisms and storage arrangements among similar machines that may lead to potentially different refrigerated volumes for different machines with the same vendible capacity. In addition, EPCA has historically used upper limits on energy use as a function of volume for the purposes of establishing energy conservation standards for refrigeration equipment.

Id.

In the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, DOE determined that section 5.2 of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, which addresses the measurement of refrigerated volume in household freezers, is also applicable to beverage vending machines and is more appropriate than the language for measurement of volume in household refrigerators of section 4.2 of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004. Specifically, section 5.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 includes provisions for specific compartments and features that are typically found in beverage vending machines, which are similar to compartments and features found in freezers. Therefore, DOE adopted “refrigerated volume” in lieu of “vendible capacity” as the dimensional metric for beverage vending machines in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule.

Id.

Since the publication of the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, ASHRAE and AHAM have both published updated test standards. The most recent edition of the ASHRAE 32.1 test method is ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, which includes changes that align ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 with the nomenclature and methodology used in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule (71 FR at 71355) and the 2009 BVM energy conservation standards final rule (74 FR 44914 (Aug. 31, 2009)). The most recent version of the AHAM HRF-1 test standard, AHAM HRF-1-2008, changes and reorganizes some sections for simplicity and usability, including the section relevant to measuring refrigerated volume of beverage vending machines.

DOE reviewed these updated industry standards and proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR to, among other things, incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010, with minor modifications, as the DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines, for both determining daily energy consumption (DEC) and refrigerated volume. Specifically, DOE proposed to adopt Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 for determining refrigerated volume and proposed to remove ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 from the documents incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.293. 79 FR 46908, 46911-46912 (Aug. 11, 2014). In addition to updating the BVM test procedure to incorporate by reference the latest industry standards, DOE also proposed a number of other amendments to clarify DOE's BVM regulations, remove ambiguity from the BVM test procedure, and adopt provisions to account for low power modes in the measured DEC. 79 FR 46908.

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

This final rule amends the DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines to clarify and remove ambiguity from the procedure, as well as incorporate several amendments that account for updated industry test methods and new equipment features. This final rule also reorganizes the DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines into an Appendix A to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431, which will be mandatory for representations made starting 180 days after the final rule is published in the

Federal Register

, and an Appendix B, that will be mandatory for equipment testing to demonstrate compliance with any amended energy conservation standards adopted as a result of the BVM energy conservation standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022)

Appendix A includes amendments that (1) update the referenced test method to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, (2) incorporate amendments to clarify several ambiguities in the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, (3) eliminate the requirement to test at the 90 °F ambient test condition, (4) clarify the test procedure for combination vending machines, (5) clarify the requirements for loading of BVM units under the DOE test procedure, (6) specify the characteristics of a standard test package, (7) clarify the average next-to-vend beverage temperature test condition, (8) specify placement of thermocouples during the DOE test procedure, (9) establish provisions for testing at the lowest application product temperature, (10) clarify the treatment of certain accessories during the DOE test procedure, and (11) clarify the certification and reporting requirements for covered beverage vending machines. DOE has concluded that these amendments will serve to clarify the test procedure. As such, and as noted above, these clarifications and amendments are mandatory for representations made starting 180 days after the final rule is published in the

Federal Register

, and manufacturers will be required to use Appendix A to demonstrate compliance with existing energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines after that date. If desired, manufacturers may elect to begin using Appendix A on the effective date of this final rule, 30 days after publication in the

Federal Register

, instead of the existing BVM test procedure requirements in 10 CFR 431.294 as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2015.

Appendix B includes all provisions of Appendix A, as well as provisions to account for the impact of low power modes on the measured DEC of beverage vending machines. Appendix B is intended to be used to demonstrate compliance with any amended energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines established as part of the parallel BVM energy conservation standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022) Manufacturers will be required to use the test procedure adopted in Appendix B to demonstrate compliance with any future DOE energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines, as well as for labeling or other representations as to the energy use of refrigerated beverage vending machines, beginning on the compliance date of any final rule establishing amended energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines.

Prior to the compliance date of any such amended energy conservation standards, manufacturers must continue to use the test procedure found in Appendix A to demonstrate compliance with existing DOE energy conservation standards and for representations concerning the energy use of refrigerated beverage vending machines. However, manufacturers may elect to use the amended test procedure in Appendix B established as a result of this rulemaking to demonstrate compliance with any future, amended standards prior to the compliance date of such standards. Manufacturers who choose to use the amended test procedure in Appendix B early must

ensure that their equipment satisfies any applicable amended energy conservation standards established as a result of the BVM energy conservation standards rulemaking. In other words, a manufacturer may elect to use the test procedure in Appendix B prior to the established compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards to make representations with respect to the energy use of a basic model only if it also elects to certify compliance with the amended energy conservation standards.

Finally, DOE is amending 10 CFR 429.52(b) with regard to reporting requirements for beverage vending machines, including a clarifying amendment that the reported energy consumption value for beverage vending machines is based on the DEC measured in accordance with the test procedure. Similarly, DOE is amending the introductory language found in 10 CFR 431.296 to clarify the applicability of the DEC to the energy conservation standards listed in that section.

III. Discussion

In this BVM final rule, DOE is adopting several amendments to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431 to (1) clarify the scope of DOE's BVM regulations, (2) incorporate several new definitions relevant to testing beverage vending machines, (3) update the industry test methods incorporated by reference into the DOE test procedure, (4) update and clarify DOE's test procedure for beverage vending machines, and (5) clarify the language describing the energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines for the purposes of reporting the DEC determined in accordance with the test procedure. DOE is also clarifying how the DEC measured in accordance with the test procedure is reported to DOE in accordance with 10 CFR 429.52(b). The amendments adopted in this final rule are summarized in Table III.1 and discussed in more detail in the subsequent sections of this final rule, as noted in the table.

Table III.1—Summary of Amendments Adopted in this Final Rule, Their Location Within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and the Applicable Preamble Discussion

CFR location

Topic

Summary of amendments

Applicable preamble

discussion

10 CFR 429.52(b)

Reporting Requirements

Amend reporting requirements to reflect amendments incorporated in Appendices A and B

Section III.C.2.

10 CFR 431.291

Scope

Clarify applicability of 10 CFR 430.33 and 430.34 and subparts D and E of 10 CFR part 430 to beverage vending machines

Section III.C.1.

10 CFR 431.292

Definitions

Incorporate new definitions pertinent to testing beverage vending machines

Section III.A.7 and III.A.10.

10 CFR 431.293

Incorporation by Reference

Update industry standards incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure to reflect the latest versions

Section III.A.1.

10 CFR 431.294

Test Procedure

Reorganize BVM test procedure into Appendices A and B (see below)

N/A.

Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 431

Test Procedure Applicable to Energy Conservation Standards for which Compliance was Required as of August 31, 2012

Incorporate several minor amendments and clarifications to improve the accuracy and remove ambiguity

Section III.A.

Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 431

Test Procedure Applicable to Amended Energy Conservation Standards Being Considered in a Related Rulemaking

Incorporate amendments included in Appendix A and provisions for measuring low power modes

Section III.B.

10 CFR 431.466

Energy Conservation Standards

Clarify the applicability of the DEC measured in accordance with the test procedure to the energy conservation standards listed in this section

Section III.C.2.

The amendments discussed in the subsequent sections and adopted in this final rule also respond to and reflect comments by interested parties in response to the proposed amendments presented in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR. 79 FR 46908 (Aug. 11, 2014).

A. Appendix A: Clarifications and Amendments to the DOE Test Procedure

In order to clarify and remove ambiguity from the test procedure for beverage vending machines, DOE is amending subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431 by moving most of the existing test procedure for beverage vending machines from 10 CFR 431.294 to a new Appendix A to subpart Q of 10 CFR part 431. In Appendix A, DOE is also incorporating amendments to clarify and update the current DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines in the following ways:

(1) Updating the referenced test method to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010,

(2) incorporating several additional amendments to clarify ambiguities in the ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 test method,

(3) eliminating testing at the 90 °F ambient test condition,

(4) clarifying the test procedure for combination vending machines,

(5) clarifying the requirements for loading BVM models under the DOE test procedure,

(6) clarifying the specifications of the standard product,

(7) clarifying the next-to-vend beverage temperature test condition,

(8) specifying placement of thermocouples during the DOE test procedure,

(9) establishing testing provisions at the lowest application product temperature, and

(10) clarifying the treatment of certain accessories when conducting the DOE test procedure.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed a new

definition and optional test method for “fully cooled.” 79 FR 46908, 46915-17 (Aug. 11, 2014). DOE discusses this issue in section III.A.8 of this final rule. However, due to the complexity and scope of the comments received on this issue, DOE is electing to address the differentiation of Class A and Class B equipment, including the definition of fully cooled, in the ongoing BVM energy conservation standard rulemaking instead of this test procedure final rule. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022).

The subsequent sections III.A.1 through III.A.11 of this final rule discuss the specific test procedure provisions that required clarification, any comments received on these topics in response to the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE's response to those comments, and any final amendments DOE is adopting in this final rule.

1. Updating the Referenced Test Method

The current DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines incorporates by reference two industry test procedures, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, which establish a test method for beverage vending machines and a method for determining refrigerated volume, respectively. Each of these industry test procedures has been updated since the publication of the DOE test procedure in 2006. The most current versions are ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 and AHAM HRF-1-2008.

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 was amended from the 2004 version to include new definitions and nomenclature established by DOE in the 2009 BVM final rule. These changes include removing references to specific sealed-bottle package designs such as “bottled” or “canned,” revising the scope, and incorporating a new Appendix C, “Measurement of Volume,” which consists of certain portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 for measuring the refrigerated volume. Specifically, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 incorporated the portions of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 currently referenced in the DOE test procedure, section 5.2 (excluding subsections 5.2.2.2 through 5.2.2.4), which describes the method for determining refrigerated volume for residential freezers, as well as section 5.1, which describes the purpose of the section. These new amendments make the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 test procedure identical to the DOE test procedure established in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule. As the amendments to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 are primarily editorial, they do not affect the tested DEC. In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to update the industry test method incorporated by reference to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 for the measurement of DEC and vendible capacity. 79 FR 46908, 46911-46912 (Aug. 11, 2014).

Since DOE published the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, AHAM has released a new version of the AHAM HRF-1 test method, which reorganizes and simplifies the test method as presented in ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004. The revised AHAM HRF-1 test method, ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2008, combines sections 4, 5, and 6, which relate to measuring the refrigerated volume of refrigerators and freezers, into one section describing methods for determining the refrigerated volume of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, wine chillers, and freezers. This unified and simplified method includes several changes regarding the inclusion or exclusion of certain special features from the determination of refrigerated volume, such that DOE believes AHAM HRF-1-2008 has the potential to yield refrigerated volume values that differ slightly from those measured and calculated using the method in the current DOE test procedure. As such, in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 as the volume measurement methodology in its amended BVM test procedure. In the NOPR, DOE stated that adopting Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 would simplify testing for manufacturers because it would allow them to reference a single document containing all information needed to conduct the DOE test procedure. DOE also stated that it did not believe that the updated AHAM HRF-1-2008 test procedure has sufficient additional merit, compared to the volume calculation method included in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, to justify the additional burden on manufacturers. 79 FR at 46912. Commensurate with this proposal, DOE also proposed to remove ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 from the documents incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 431.293.

Id.

In response to these proposals, DOE received several comments from interested parties regarding which industry test methods DOE should incorporate by reference and the impacts of updating the industry test methods incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure. Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. (AMS), Sanden Vendo America Inc. (SVA), and Coca-Cola generally supported DOE's proposal to update its test procedure reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 1;

SVA, No. 0008 at p. 1; Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 2). Coca-Cola and ASHRAE's Standard Project Committee (SPC) 32.1 recommended that DOE wait for ASHRAE 32.1 revisions before adopting a new version of 32.1. The California investor-owned utilities (CA IOUs), including Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric, commented that DOE should align new test procedure development with ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 and track the efforts of the ASHRAE Standard Project Committee 32.1 (ASHRAE SPC 32.1) to incorporate changes into Appendix B before publication of the final rule (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 0005 at p. 2; ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 1-2).

A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures for beverage vending machines (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0045, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

). This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) submitted by Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc. (AMS); (2) appearing in document number 0007 of the docket; and (3) appearing on page 1 of that document.

DOE appreciates comments from interested parties and agrees that alignment with the most recent version of the industry test method, ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1, is advisable and will make testing beverage vending machines more consistent with the latest industry methods. DOE is aware that ASHRAE SPC 32.1 was convened in January 2014 and has been meeting monthly to discuss potential updates to the ASHRAE 32.1 standard.

DOE has been participating in these meetings to stay abreast of the changes ASHRAE SPC 32.1 is considering. To the extent possible, DOE has sought to align this final rule with those discussions and proposed updates. However, DOE notes that the discussions of the committee are not final until such amendments are approved as a new version of the ASHRAE 32.1 standard. At this time, DOE is not aware of ASHRAE's specific timeline for making such an updated version available. DOE also notes that DOE must also consider its obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A) to review test procedures every 7 years, as well as the relationship between the BVM test

procedure rulemaking and the ongoing BVM energy conservation standards rulemaking, when determining timelines. As such, DOE is compelled to move forward with finalizing the BVM test procedure amendments, as presented in this final rule, to satisfy its EPCA requirements and not adversely impact the BVM energy conservation standards rulemaking schedule.

The meeting minutes for ASHRAE SPC 32.1 are available at:

http://spc321.ashraepcs.org/

. DOE notes that, as of April 10, 2015, the Web site was last updated June 10, 2014 and, as such, only meeting minutes through May 2014 were available, although the committee has continued to meet since that time.

Regarding DOE's proposal to update the test method for determining refrigerated volume, Coca-Cola expressed support for the method described in HRF-1-2008 for determining refrigerated volume but emphasized that measurements resulting from these proposed clarifications would render different results than existing procedure, as opposed to DOE's proposed adoption of Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 2) ASHRAE SPC 32.1 and AMS objected to DOE's proposal to update the referenced method of test for the measurement of refrigerated volume in its test procedure from section 5 of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 to Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 1-2; AMS, No. 0007 at pp. 1-2) In particular, ASHRAE SPC 32.1 stated that they are considering updating Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 to reference section 4 of AHAM HRF-1-2008 to simplify the refrigerated volume measurement process that would result in minimal differences in the measurement of refrigerated volume. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 1-2) AMS commented that the new calculations would affect the Maximum Daily Energy Consumption (MDEC) of their machines. (AMS, No. 0007 at pp. 1-2)

In response to comments regarding the proposed test method for determining refrigerated volume, DOE analyzed ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, AHAM HRF-1-2008, and Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 and compared the relevant methods. DOE believes AHAM HRF-1-2008 has the potential to yield refrigerated volume values that differ slightly from those calculated using ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, which was the method incorporated by reference in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, as ASHRAE SPC 32.1 acknowledged during the NOPR public meeting. DOE does not believe that the updated method for computing refrigerated volume from section 4 of the AHAM HRF-1-2008 test method has sufficient additional merit when compared to the volume calculation method included in Appendix C of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, which adopts section 5.2 (excluding subsections 5.2.2.2 through 5.2.2.4) of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004. Therefore, DOE is adopting provisions to continue referencing ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, as incorporated into Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010.

In addition, adopting Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 will allow manufacturers to reference a single industry standard containing all information needed to conduct the DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines and will also limit manufacturer testing burden since they will only have to purchase one industry standard to complete the DOE test procedure. For these reasons, DOE is updating the industry test method incorporated by reference to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 for the measurement of refrigerated volume and removing the incorporation by reference of ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004 from the DOE test procedure. Accordingly, DOE is also amending the definition for refrigerated volume at § 431.292 to reference the appropriate standard.

2. Other Minor Clarifications and Amendments to ASHRAE 32.1-2010

In reviewing ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010, and in light of the comments received from interested parties suggesting that DOE follow the work of ASHRAE SPC 32.1 to update the ASHRAE 32.1 test method, DOE is adopting several additional clarifications in this final rule. Specifically, DOE is clarifying: (1) The ambient temperature and relative humidity tolerances, (2) the voltage tolerances for equipment with dual nameplate voltages, (3) the requirements for sampling and recording of specific test data, and (4) how to calculate DEC based on tested values determined in the ASHRAE 32.1 test method.

DOE is incorporating these amendments in response to comments that DOE should align updates to the DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines with the updates being considered by ASHRAE SPC 32.1. DOE has determined that these amendments will improve the clarity and repeatability of the DOE test procedure and is incorporating these amendments in Appendices A and B of the BVM test procedure.

a. Ambient Temperature and Relative Humidity Tolerance

In written comments, AMS suggested that DOE clarify permissible temperature limits during testing (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 3). DOE appreciates the comment, and wishes to clarify that ambient temperature and humidity shall be maintained within the ranges specified in Table 1, “Standard Test Conditions,” of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 for each recorded measurement for the duration of the test, including stabilization. The ambient temperature and relative humidity requirements from Table 1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 that are pertinent to the DOE test procedure are shown in Table III.2. To clarify that the tolerance on relative humidity is in fact in the units of “percent relative humidity (percent RH)” and not a percentage of the measured value, the acceptable range is also provided in Table III.2.

Table III.2—Ambient Temperature and Relative Humidity Specified Value and Tolerance

Test and pretest condition

Value

Tolerance

Acceptable range

Ambient Temperature

75 °F

±2 °F

73-77 °F

Relative Humidity

45 percent RH

±5 percent RH

40-50 percent RH

In this final rule, DOE is adopting a similar table in section 2.1 of Appendix A and B to clearly specify the appropriate test conditions and applicable tolerances for, among other things, the ambient temperature and relative humidity.

DOE's amendments specifying the ambient temperature and relative humidity tolerances in Table 1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 as an instantaneous tolerance to be applied to each measurement are consistent with the updates ASHRAE SPC 32.1 is considering in their revisions of the ASHRAE 32.1 standard. In addition, such treatment is consistent with the specification of ambient conditions in the DOE test procedure for similar equipment, including commercial refrigeration equipment (10 CFR 431.64) and automatic commercial ice makers (10 CFR 431.134). DOE also notes,

however, that such treatment is different than the tolerance applied to the integrated average temperature (as described in section III.A.7 of this final rule), which is a single tolerance applied to that one average value and is not applicable to each temperature measurement in that case.

In addition, when reviewing the ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 test method in conjunction with ASHRAE SPC 32.1, DOE determined that the accuracy requirements for the equipment used to measure relative humidity are not clearly specified. As the relative humidity is required to be maintained within ±5 percent RH of the specified value, the precision of the measurement equipment must be of higher resolution than the allowed tolerance in order to ensure that the relative humidity is in fact maintained within such a range. As such, and in accordance with the changes being considered by ASHRAE SPC 32.1, DOE is adopting provisions in section 1.1 of Appendices A and B that relative humidity shall be measured with a calibrated instrument accurate to ±2 percent RH at the ambient conditions specified in Table 1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010. That is, the instrument must have a measured accuracy of ±2 percent RH at 45 percent RH, or 4.4 percent of the measured value.

b. Voltage and Frequency Tolerances

Following publication of the NOPR, DOE learned that ASHRAE SPC 32.1 was considering changes to ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 concerning BVM nameplate voltages. Specifically, DOE became aware that ASHRAE SPC 32.1 was considering a change such that the same tolerances on nameplate voltage and frequency that apply to equipment with single nameplate voltages, namely ±2 percent and ±1 percent, respectively, should also apply to the tested voltage for equipment with dual nameplate voltages. Consistent with the changes being considered by ASHRAE SPC 32.1, DOE determined that the tolerances on voltage and frequency listed in paragraph (a) of section 6.2, “Voltage and Frequency,” of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 (which addresses beverage vending machines with single nameplate voltages) are not equivalently applied to equipment with dual nameplate voltages in paragraph (b) of section 6.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010. As such, DOE is adopting, in this final rule, provisions in section 2.1 of Appendices A and B that beverage vending machines with dual nameplate voltages must be conducted at the lower of the two voltages ±2 percent and at the rated frequency ±1 percent.

c. Data Collection

In section 7.2.2.3, ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 currently specifies that the following data shall be recorded for 24 consecutive hours after stabilization has been achieved: Ambient temperature, relative humidity, average beverage temperature, energy consumption, input voltage, and time. However, ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 does not provide specific requirements regarding how frequently such data should be sampled.

In response to the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, AMS recommended that DOE clearly state at what interval each reading is taken, and suggested that readings should be recorded at a minimum frequency of once per minute. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 3)

DOE agrees with AMS that the sampling interval for data collection should be clearly specified, as collecting data at different sampling intervals can affect the energy consumption results. As such, DOE is clarifying in section 2.2.4 of Appendix A and 2.2.6 of Appendix B that the sampling interval must be at least 1 minute; that is, each measured data variable should be recorded at least every 1 minute. DOE notes that this requirement is also consistent with the changes being considered by ASHRAE SPC 32.1 for future revisions of the ASHRAE 32.1 standard.

In addition, DOE notes that, as part of this final rule, DOE is also adopting amendments to the BVM test procedure that change the terms that are used to refer to the “average beverage temperature,” as described more fully in section III.A.7 and III.B.3 of this final rule. Specifically, instead of the “average beverage temperature,” as referenced in ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010, DOE's test procedure for beverage vending machines as adopted in this final rule refers to the “instantaneous average next-to-vend beverage temperature” and the “integrated average temperature.” As such, DOE is clarifying in section 2.2.4 of Appendix A and 2.2.6 of Appendix B that, in section 7.2.2.3 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010, the “average beverage temperature” refers to the “instantaneous average next-to-vend beverage temperature.”

d. Calculation of Daily Energy Consumption.

Section 7.2.3, “Energy Consumption Calculations,” of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 specifies that the daily rated energy consumption of each basic model of a vending machine shall be determined as:

= (

) × 24

Where:

= primary rated energy consumption per day, kWh,

= energy consumed during the test, kWh,

= duration of the test, h, and

24 = the number of hours per day.

In reviewing ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010, DOE realized that there may be confusion regarding the terminology used in this section and how these values are to be used when determining the DEC result for a given tested unit for the purposes of rating equipment in accordance with the DOE test procedure. Specifically, the variable

is referred to as both the “daily rated energy consumption” in the introductory paragraph and the “primary rated energy consumption per day” in the variable definitions below the stated equation In section 2.3 of Appendices A and B, DOE is referring to the variable

using only the term “primary rated energy consumption per day” to describe how to use this value when determining the DEC of each tested beverage vending machine.

DOE notes that additional calculations may be required to determine the “daily energy consumption” in accordance with the DOE BVM test procedure adopted in this final rule to address payment mechanisms, depending on the configuration in which the beverage vending machine is tested. See section III.A.11.a for more information.

DOE also notes that ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 currently does not specify how to treat measured values when calculating the DEC values in accordance with section 7.2.3, “Energy Consumption Calculations,” of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010. In this final rule, DOE is also adopting specifications in section 2.3.1 of Appendix A and 2.3.3 of Appendix B that the primary rated energy consumption per day (

) must be calculated with raw measured values and rounded to units of 0.01 kWh/day.

3. Eliminating Testing at the 90 °F Ambient Test Condition

Both ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, the test method incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure adopted in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, the test method DOE is incorporating by reference in the amended test procedure as discussed in section III.A.1 of this final rule, specify two tests: One at an ambient condition of 75 °F ± 2 °F and 45 percent ± 5 percent relative humidity (“the 75 °F ambient test condition”) and the other at an ambient condition of 90 °F ± 2 °F and 65 percent ± 5 percent relative humidity (“the 90 °F ambient test condition”). By incorporating by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard

32.1-2004, DOE's current test procedure for beverage vending machines requires testing at both the 75 °F ambient test condition and 90 °F ambient test condition. In the energy conservation standards rulemaking that culminated in the 2009 BVM final rule, however, DOE decided that only the measured DEC determined at the 75 °F ambient test condition would be used for the purposes of demonstrating compliance with applicable energy conservation standards. The data taken at the 90 °F ambient test condition were not used by DOE in setting the standards established in the 2009 BVM final rule and are not used to demonstrate compliance with those standards. 74 FR 44914, 44920 (Aug. 31, 2009) and 10 CFR 429.52. However, the 2009 BVM final rule did not similarly amend the DOE test procedure to remove the requirement to test at the 90 °F ambient test condition and, as such, the requirement to test covered BVM models at both the 75 °F and 90 °F ambient test conditions established in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule remained in place until being reevaluated in this test procedure rulemaking.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to amend its test procedure to eliminate the requirement to perform a test at the 90 °F ambient test condition as described in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. 79 FR 46908, 46912-46913 (Aug. 11, 2014). DOE understands that the 90 °F test is used primarily to represent and evaluate the performance of some units that may be installed outdoors, especially in hot-humid locations; however, as mentioned above, the performance of a beverage vending machine at the 90 °F ambient test condition is not currently used for DOE regulatory purposes. Therefore, DOE does not see a need to maintain the 90 °F test condition as part of the DOE test procedure.

DOE believes that removing the 90 °F ambient test condition test requirement will also reduce manufacturer burden associated with its test procedure by eliminating testing that does not significantly increase the accuracy or representativeness of the DOE test procedure and is unnecessary for demonstrating compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE requested comment on its proposal to eliminate the requirement to conduct testing at the 90 °F ambient test condition. 79 FR at 46913. AMS, SVA, and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 supported the elimination of testing at the 90 °F test condition. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 2; SVA, No. 0008 at p. 1; ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 2) Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) asked why DOE would not test their machines according to worst case conditions. (NRCan, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at p. 25) Coca-Cola also agreed with DOE that there should be a single set of conditions for testing and rating purposes. Coca-Cola, however, stated that some machines are designed for higher ambient temperatures, and asked DOE to factor this into the application of test results, even if the machine is not tested at 90 °F. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 2)

DOE appreciates the comments from AMS, SVA, and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 supporting the elimination of the 90 °F ambient test condition and Coca-Cola's comment to have a single set of conditions for testing and rating purposes. In response to the comment from NRCan, DOE notes that it is required to create test procedures that are representative of the performance of the equipment under an average cycle of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE believes that the test conditions required by the test procedure, namely 75 °F and 45 percent relative humidity, are reasonably representative of the average operating conditions of most beverage vending machines. In particular, DOE notes that the majority of beverage vending machines are installed indoors (see chapter 7 of the BVM energy conservation standard preliminary analysis technical support document; Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022) and that such indoor environments are normally kept close to the average temperature used for the DOE test. As such, DOE believes that the DEC values measured at the current test conditions are an accurate reflection of field energy use and does not believe a test condition of 90 °F would be representative of field energy use for the majority of equipment. In response to Coca-Cola's comment regarding the application of test results on machines designed for higher ambient temperatures, DOE understands that some beverage vending machines are placed in locations that experience ambient temperature and relative humidity conditions that differ from those required in the test procedure, including environments that are often warmer and have higher relative humidity than specified by ASHRAE 32.1-2010. However, it is not feasible or realistic to test BVM models at all the different ambient temperature conditions they may experience in the field. First, doing so would be extremely burdensome. Second, it is difficult to determine which BVM models will be placed in different ambient conditions (

e.g.

, tropical conditions), as often the same BVM model may be placed indoors or outdoors. In the BVM energy conservation standards preliminary analysis, DOE estimated that 18 percent of Class B and Combination B

beverage vending machines were located outdoors, and all Class A and Combination A

equipment is located indoors (see chapter 7 of the BVM energy conservation standard preliminary analysis technical support document (TSD)). DOE believes that the required test condition of 75 °F is representative of the indoor environments in which the majority of BVM units are placed. Therefore, DOE believes the 75 °F ambient test condition provides a reasonable and comparable representation of energy performance for all BVM models and testing at alternative test conditions is not necessary. DOE is accounting for the variable energy performance of beverage vending machines that are placed outdoors as part of the energy use analysis associated with the BVM energy conservation standard rulemaking. However, DOE is not considering different or alternative energy conservation standards for such equipment based on the fact that most BVM models can be placed indoors or outdoors and that, as a result, a standard based on analysis at the 75 °F test procedure ambient condition would be applicable. (

See

Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022 for more information.)

In the DOE energy conservation standard preliminary analysis, DOE discussed dividing the “combination vending machine” equipment class into “Combination A” equipment that was fully cooled and “Combination B” equipment that was not fully cooled, similar to the Class A and Class B distinction.

See

chapter 2 of the BVM energy conservation standard preliminary analysis TSD. Additionally, DOE is proposing language to address equipment class distinctions as part of the energy conservation standards rulemaking.

Thus, in this final rule, DOE is removing the requirement to conduct testing at the 90 °F ambient test condition as part of the DOE test procedure. DOE is clarifying the ambient test conditions necessary for testing in accordance with the DOE test procedure in a new Table A.1 in Appendix A and Table B.1 in Appendix B in section 2.1 of both Appendices A and B. DOE notes that ASHRAE SPC 32.1 is also currently considering updating ASHRAE 32.1 to remove the 90 °F ambient test condition.

4. Test Procedure for Combination Vending Machines

“Combination vending machine” is currently defined as a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine that also has non-refrigerated

volumes for the purpose of vending other, non-“sealed beverage” merchandise. 10 CFR 431.292. Based on this definition, any machine (a) that upon payment dispenses beverages in sealed containers and (b) in which the entire internal storage volume is refrigerated is not a combination vending machine.

In the 2009 BVM final rule, DOE elected to define “combination vending machine,” but refrained from setting standards for combination vending machines due to a lack of data regarding their energy performance.

Id.

However, DOE is currently considering standards for combination vending machines in a parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022)

While combination vending machines are not currently required to comply with energy conservation standards, any representations with regard to the DEC of such equipment must still be made in accordance with the DOE BVM test procedure. DOE's current test procedure is appropriate for the evaluation of the refrigerated volume, vendible capacity, and energy use of combination vending machines. DOE notes, however, that the application of the BVM test procedure may require clarification as to how it is applied to combination vending machines. Accordingly, in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify the test procedure for combination vending machines. 79 FR 46908, 46913-46914 (Aug. 11, 2014). In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that only the refrigerated compartment would be considered in the refrigerated volume calculation, while both refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments would be considered in the vendible capacity calculation. Similarly, DOE proposed that standard test packages be placed in the next-to-vend product location only in the refrigerated portion of the refrigerated beverage vending machine, and only the refrigerated portion of the combination vending machine be required to be fully loaded to capacity. 79 FR at 46914.

With regard to the measurement of DEC for combination vending machines, DOE also proposed that any lighting or other energy-consuming features in the non-refrigerated compartment be fully energized during the test procedure and operated in the same manner as any lighting or features in the refrigerated compartment. DOE also proposed that the total energy use of the machine measured during the 24-hour test would comprise the DEC, as measured in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010.

Id.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed the addition of these clarifications to the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.294 for combination vending machines and requested comment on the applicability of the existing test procedure, as clarified, to combination vending machines. In response, SVA and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 commented that they believe the test procedure is applicable to combination vending machines. (SVA, No. 0008 at p. 1; ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 2) Coca-Cola commented that the test was applicable to combination vending machines that have more than half of the machine capacity refrigerated. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 3) AMS noted that the test procedure does not specify how or what products would be required to be loaded in the non-refrigerated product compartment during the test, and stated this could affect the energy consumption of combination vending machines that do not provide 100 percent thermal isolation between zones. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 2) AMS commented that the insulation between refrigerated and non-refrigerated zones does not completely separate the two zones and hence should not be excluded from the MDEC calculation. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 4)

DOE appreciates the comments from SVA and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 confirming DOE's position that the DOE test procedure is applicable to combination vending machines. However, DOE disagrees with Coca-Cola's comment that they believe the test is only applicable to combination vending machines that have more than half of the machine capacity refrigerated. The DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines is applicable to all equipment that meets the definition of a “refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine,” as defined at 10 CFR 431.292, including Class A, Class B, and combination vending machines. As noted above, DOE currently defines “combination vending machine” as a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine that also has non-refrigerated volumes for the purpose of vending other, non-“sealed beverage” merchandise. 10 CFR 431.292. DOE notes that its regulations do not restrict the applicability of the definition based on the relative volumes of the refrigerated and non-refrigerated volumes. As stated previously, any equipment that is capable of vending bottled or canned beverages upon payment from a refrigerated compartment contained within the unit, and also has non-refrigerated compartments for the purpose of vending other, non-“sealed beverage” merchandise, meets the definition of a combination vending machine regardless of the relative volume of the refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments.

In considering the applicability of the combination vending machine definition, DOE wishes to clarify that combination vending machines must include compartments that are physically separated. However, DOE acknowledges that some combination equipment designs employ a common product delivery chute between the refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments. As such, DOE also wishes to clarify that such physically separate compartments in a combination vending machine may or may not share a common product delivery chute for the purposes of delivering vendible merchandise to the customer. To permit additional consideration of these issues and to provide more opportunity for comment, DOE will further address the definition of combination vending machine in the standards rulemaking (Docket EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022). DOE notes that any changes to the definition adopted in the standards rulemaking would be to provide more clarity of the distinctions between the various product classes and would not change the appropriate classifications.

With regard to the determination of refrigerated volume and vendible capacity for combination vending machines, ASHRAE SPC 32.1 is also considering specifying that both the refrigerated volume and vendible capacity measurements refer only to the deliberately refrigerated compartment(s). In consideration of these changes suggested by ASHRAE SPC 32.1, DOE is also adopting wording changes in Appendices A and B to help clarify testing of refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments. Section 3.2 of each appendix specifies that the vendible capacity to be measured includes only the capacity of the refrigerated compartment; this is a change from DOE's proposed approach in the BVM test procedure NOPR, where DOE had proposed to include the entire volume from which the product may be vended, whether or not that volume is refrigerated. In this final rule, DOE is also clarifying in section 3.1 of each appendix that the refrigerated volume measurement only includes the refrigerated compartment, and, in section 2.2.1.3 of each appendix, that only this compartment shall be fully loaded to capacity with standard product and test packages. These clarifications are consistent with the

changes being considered by ASHRAE SPC 32.1 to the ASHRAE 32.1 standard. DOE will continue to consider how to delineate more clearly the distinction between refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments as it addresses the definition of combination vending machine in the standards rulemaking (Docket EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022). Because the goal is to ensure the regulatory text is clear and consistent between the test procedure, the definitions and the standards, DOE may make, as part of the standards rulemaking, conforming changes to these sections to reflect any final changes to the definition of combination vending machine.

DOE agrees with AMS that the loading of non-refrigerated compartments for the purposes of testing combination vending machines requires clarification. The thermal mass of any items loaded into the volumes that are not refrigerated may affect the measured DEC of equipment and, as such, it is important that the loading of these compartments be done consistently to ensure repeatable and comparable results. DOE also notes that there is significant variability in the thermal mass of the different “non-sealed beverage merchandise” that might be loaded into the volumes that are not refrigerated. As such, as mentioned previously, in this final rule, DOE is clarifying in section 2.2.1.3 of Appendices A and B to Subpart Q of Part 431 that, during conduct of the test procedure, the non-refrigerated compartments of combination vending machines must not be loaded with any standard products or other vendible merchandise. In response to AMS's comment suggesting that the refrigerated and non-refrigerated zones may not be completely separated and, thus, should be considered in the calculation of the standard level for combination equipment, DOE agrees with AMS that some combination vending machines may be designed such that the refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments are not completely thermally isolated, such as from air leakage through a shared product delivery chute. However, DOE notes that a refrigerated compartment that has a thermal gradient is considered to be zone-cooled. As noted above, DOE is continuing to consider how best to clarify the distinction between refrigerated and non-refrigerated compartments in a combination vending machine as part of the standards rulemaking. Regarding the standard level for such combination equipment, DOE notes that combination vending machines are not currently subject to standards but that DOE is considering new standards for such equipment in the ongoing BVM energy conservation standard rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022) DOE acknowledges that the fact that there may be some heat transfer between the non-refrigerated and refrigerated volumes may affect the appropriate energy conservation standard level, and DOE will consider such in the setting of an appropriate standard level for this equipment.

5. Loading of BVM Models When Conducting the DOE Test Procedure

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to add language to the BVM test procedure to clarify the loading requirements for beverage vending machines that are offered in a variety of configurations and may be capable of vending other refrigerated merchandise from their refrigerated volumes. 79 FR 46908, 46914 (Aug. 11, 2014). Specifically, DOE proposed to amend the regulatory text to clarify that, for beverage vending machines that are available with a variety of product storage configurations, the refrigerated compartment(s) should be configured, for purposes of testing, to hold the maximum number of sealed beverages that it is capable of accommodating per manufacturer specifications.

Id.

For example, if some areas of the refrigerated volume can be configured either to vend sealed beverages or to vend other refrigerated merchandise, the equipment should be configured and loaded with the maximum number of sealed beverages in the refrigerated compartment(s) for testing.

DOE understands that tests conducted with other configurations may produce different results because of the decrease in thermal mass in the refrigerated space. Various configurations that differ in placement and type of shelving only may be placed in the same basic model with the performance at the maximum beverage configuration used to represent the performance of all of the configurations in the basic model. Alternatively, if a manufacturer wishes to make different representations regarding the energy consumption of a beverage vending machine in various shelving configurations, the manufacturer may elect to test and certify each unique shelving configuration as a separate basic model.

In that case, the unique shelving configuration for that BVM model would comprise the “maximum beverage configuration” for that model.

For purposes of beverage vending machines, basic model means all units of a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine (or class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source, and which have essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy consumption or energy efficiency.

See

10 CFR 431.292. If differing shelving configurations affect the energy consumption, these differing configurations should be considered different basic models, unless manufacturers elect to group BVM units that vary in shelving configuration only into the same BVM basic model and rate such model based on the performance of the shelving configuration that holds the maximum number of sealed beverages.

In response to DOE's proposed language regarding the loading requirements for BVM models subject to the DOE test procedure, ASHRAE SPC 32.1 expressed support for DOE's proposal to add language to the DOE test procedure in Appendices A and B to clarify the loading requirements for covered BVM models. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any negative comments on this proposal. As such, in this final rule, DOE has added language to the DOE test procedure in section 2.2.1 of Appendices A and B to clarify the loading requirements for the refrigerated compartment(s) of BVM models. As noted in section III.A.4 of this final rule, DOE is also clarifying that non-refrigerated compartments should be left empty and not loaded with any vendible products or merchandise.

6. Specifying the Characteristics of the Standard Product

When testing a BVM model in accordance with the DOE test procedure established in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, the equipment is to be loaded with the maximum quantity of standard products and with standard test packages in each next-to-be-vended position for each selection, as required by section 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. Section 5 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 further requires that the standard product shall be 12-ounce cans for machines that are capable of dispensing 12-ounce cans. For all other machines, the standard product shall be the product specified by the manufacturer as the standard product.

The DOE test procedure established in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule does not provide any further specificity regarding the characteristics of the standard product when conducting the DOE test procedure or the manufacture of standard test packages. DOE understands that there may be variability among manufacturers and testing laboratories with regard to the characteristics of standard products and

standard test packages. DOE believes that such variability may result in minor inconsistencies in test results. As such, in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify the characteristics of the standard product and standard test package to ensure test results are as consistent and repeatable as possible. 79 FR 46908, 46914-46915 (Aug. 11, 2014). Specifically, in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to add text to the BVM test procedure in Appendices A and B, specifying that the standard product shall be:

• Standard 12-ounce aluminum beverage cans filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 grams per milliliter (g/mL) ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F for beverage vending machines that are capable of vending cans,

• 20-ounce plastic bottles filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F for beverage vending machines that are not capable of vending 12-ounce cans, but are capable of vending 20-ounce bottles, and

• the product specified by the manufacturer as the standard product for beverage vending machines that are not capable of vending 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles.

Id.

DOE selected a density range of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL, as it is inclusive of most test fluids used today. For example, this density range includes water, diet and regular soda, fruit juices, and propylene glycol/water mixtures up to 50/50 percent by volume. In addition, Fischer-Nickel conducted research in 2004 that compared the temperature measurements of standard test packages constructed in the manner specified by ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1 to the test packages described in ASHRAE Standard 117-2002, “Method of Testing Closed Refrigerators and Freezers,” which are 1-pint plastic test packages filled with a 50/50 mixture of water and propylene glycol; little variation was found in measured temperatures when comparing different test package materials and fluids.

Cowen, D. and Zabrowski, D. 2004. “Application and Evaluation of ASHRAE 117-2002 and ASHRAE 32.1-1997.” FSTC Report # 5011.04.01. Fischer-Nickel, Inc. Available at:

http://www.fishnick.com/publications/appliancereports/refrigeration/Application_of_ASHRAE_117_and_32.1.pdf

Section 3 of ASHRAE 32.1-2004 and 2010 defines the standard test package as a beverage container of the size and shape for which the vending machine is designed, altered to include a temperature-measuring instrument at its center of mass. DOE finds the requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and 2010 to be fairly clear and concise when paired with the clarification above regarding the standard product. Therefore, DOE did not propose additional clarifications regarding the construction of standard test packages beyond the proposed clarification that the standard product shall be 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles for BVM models that are capable of vending cans or bottles, respectively, filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F.

Id.

In response to DOE's proposals in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE received several comments from interested parties supporting DOE's proposed clarifications. AMS expressed their approval of DOE's proposed definition of a standard test package. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 3) Specifically, Coca-Cola and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 agreed with DOE's assertion that the most common standard products were 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 3; ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 2)

DOE also received several comments suggesting improvements or requesting further clarification to the proposed standard product specifications. Coca-Cola noted that beverage vending machines that dispense 330 mL “slimline” cans (which have a higher ratio of height to diameter than standard 12-ounce cans) also exist. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 3) AMS requested DOE clarify the standard products for helix driven machines, noting that they typically do not dispense 12-ounce cans. (AMS, No. 0007 at pp. 2-3) SVA supported clarity in what a standard product was, and noted that flexibility was required for machines designed to vend milk cartons, aseptic packs, pouches, and energy drinks. (SVA, No. 0008 at p. 1)

DOE appreciates the comment from AMS in support of the definition of a standard test package. DOE also appreciates the comments from ASHRAE SPC 32.1 and Coca-Cola acknowledging that 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles are the most common standard products and supporting DOE's clarification of the standard product definition. In response to the comments from Coca-Cola, SVA, and AMS regarding equipment that is designed to vend non-standard products, such as “slimline” cans, milk cartons, aseptic packs, pouches, and energy drinks, DOE agrees with commenters that flexibility in the specification of the standard product is required for beverage vending machines that are not capable of vending 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles. DOE appreciates the specific examples of such products provided by commenters where such provision would be required. For such beverage vending machines, the product specified by the manufacturer as the standard product shall continue to be used in testing. DOE will determine the appropriate standard product for use in testing by consulting manufacturer product literature. DOE notes, however, that manufacturers may only test equipment with products other than 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles if the machine is not capable of vending either of these product types.

In light of these comments, DOE is not altering the clarification regarding the standard product proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is adding a clarification in section 2.2.1.4 of Appendices A and B that the standard product shall be 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles for BVM models that are capable of vending 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles, respectively, filled with a liquid with a density of 1.0 g/mL ± 0.1 g/mL at 36 °F, or the product specified by the manufacturer as the standard product for beverage vending machines that are not capable of vending 12-ounce cans or 20-ounce bottles.

7. Clarifying the Next-To-Vend Beverage Temperature Test Condition

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, the test method incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure adopted in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, states, “the beverage temperature shall be measured in standard test packages in each next-to-be-vended position for each selection.” ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 specifies an average next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F “throughout test.” The beverage temperature requirements of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 test method, which DOE proposed to incorporate by reference in the DOE BVM test procedure as part of the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR (79 FR 46908, 46911-46912 (Aug. 11, 2014)), are identical to those of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004. However, DOE became aware of a need to clarify whether the next-to-vend temperature specification of 36 °F ± 1 °F “throughout test” refers to a condition in which the average next-to-vend temperature is maintained at 36 °F ± 1 °F constantly for the duration of the test, or one in which the temperature of next-to-vend beverages is averaged across all selections and over the entire length of the test, resulting in a single value of 36 °F ± 1 °F.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify its test

procedure by explicitly stating that the temperature of next-to-vend beverages shall be averaged across all next-to-vend beverages and over the entire time of the test, resulting in a single value of 36 °F ± 1 °F. Specifically, to clarify this requirement, DOE proposed to incorporate a definition of integrated average temperature and define this term as the average of all standard test package measurements in the next-to-vend beverage positions taken during the test, expressed in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). 79 FR at 46915. That is, the integrated average temperature is calculated as follows:

ER31JY15.020

Where:

IAT

= integrated average temperature, °F (°C),

= measured beverage temperature for next-to vend test package x at interval i,

= total number of recorded intervals, and

= total number of next-to-vend test packages.

In response to DOE's proposed definition of integrated average temperature, SVA and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 commented that they support DOE's definition of integrated average temperature. (SVA, No. 0008 at p. 1; ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 3) ASHRAE SPC 32.1, Southern California Edison (SCE), and AMS added that maintaining each individual thermocouple within 1 °F of 36 °F was unnecessarily rigorous and not possible in many machine designs. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at pp. 2-3; SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at p. 43; AMS, No. 0007 at p. 3) Coca-Cola also stated their understanding that 36 °F ± 1 °F should be applied over the entire testing period and cannot be maintained for every individual data measurement because of programmed defrost cycles. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 3-4)

DOE appreciates the comments from SVA and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 supporting DOE's definition of integrated average temperature. In response to comments from ASHRAE SPC 32.1, SCE, and AMS, DOE recognizes that it is not possible to maintain individual standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions within 36 °F ± 1 °F for some equipment designs due to spatial variability within the unit. In addition, DOE agrees with Coca-Cola's remarks that even an instantaneous spatial average of all standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage locations may not be feasible to maintain throughout the entire test period due to temporal temperature variability resulting from defrost cycles or other compressor cycling behavior. DOE notes that these comments are consistent with DOE's proposed treatment of the “average beverage temperature” condition and the definition of integrated average temperature proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR.

Therefore, in section 1.2 of Appendices A and B, DOE is adopting the definition of integrated average temperature proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR. DOE is also specifying, in section 2.1.1 of Appendices A and B, that the integrated average temperature must be 36 °F ± 1 °F, or the lowest application product temperature as discussed in section III.A.10 of this final rule, for the purposes of testing equipment in accordance with the DOE test procedure. 79 FR at 49615.

DOE notes that, while the integrated average temperature is the measurement that must be used to comply with DOE's requirements regarding the average beverage temperature of beverage vending machines during the test period (excluding the stabilization period), the instantaneous spatial average temperature of all standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions is still a relevant measurement for the purposes of determining the presence of a refrigeration low power mode (see section III.B.3 of this final rule) and for determining temperature stabilization prior to initiating the test period. Specifically, section 7.2.2.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 specifies that temperature stabilization is considered to be achieved 24 hours after the “average beverage temperature” reaches 36 °F ±1 °F (and measured energy consumption is within 2 percent for two successive 6-hr periods). In this case, the “average beverage temperature” specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 refers to the “instantaneous average next-to-vend beverage temperature” and not a temporal average (

i.e.,

the integrated average temperature). Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is also adopting in section 1.2 of Appendices A and B a new definition of instantaneous average next-to-vend beverage temperature, which means the spatial average temperature of all standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions at a given time. To clarify, using the previously discussed nomenclature, the instantaneous average next-to-vend beverage temperature is calculated as follows:

ER31JY15.021

Where:

= average beverage temperature at interval i, °F (°C),

= measured beverage temperature for next-to-vend test package x at interval i, and

= total number of next-to-vend test packages.

To clarify the applicability of the instantaneous average next-to-vend beverage temperature to the temperature stabilization requirements in the test procedure, DOE is also clarifying in section 2.1.1.1, that temperature stabilization is considered to be achieved 24 hours after the instantaneous average next-to-vend beverage temperature reaches 36 °F ±1 °F.

Regarding the measurement of the integrated average temperature, AMS and SVA requested that some means be provided by which the number of thermocouples could be reduced. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 3; SVA, No. 0008 at p. 1) AMS further suggested that, as there are many different BVM geometries and configurations, manufacturers be allowed some flexibility in how this was accomplished, provided it could be demonstrated that the method used would generate equivalent DEC results to testing with a thermocouple in each next-to-vend beverage location. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 3) Coca-Cola agreed with AMS and SVA and stated that added temperatures sensors introduce additional points of air infiltration into the machine and thus may upset the integrity of the test. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 4).

In response to the comments from AMS, SVA, and Coca-Cola regarding reduction in the number of standard test packages required for testing beverage vending machines, DOE agrees with commenters that there is potential to reduce burden associated with testing beverage vending machines with horizontal product configurations, which may have a large number of next-to-vend beverage locations, by reducing the number of standard test packages that are required to be loaded in the next-to-vend beverage positions. Furthermore, DOE believes that provided the standard test packages are spatially distributed across the face of the beverage vending machine, the measured integrated average temperature should not be significantly different than that determined with a standard test package in each next-to-vend location. This is particularly true for fully-cooled, Class A beverage vending machines (which are the category of beverage vending machine that most commonly has a horizontal product arrangement), since the temperature distribution across the

standard test packages should be reasonably consistent. DOE also notes that ASHRAE SPC 32.1 is, similarly, considering changing the requirements for loading standard test packages in equipment with horizontal product arrangement to reduce the required number of standard test packages.

Therefore, consistent with the submitted comments from interested parties and the potential changes ASHRAE SPC 32.1 is considering, DOE is amending the requirements for placement of standard test packages for beverage vending machines with products arranged horizontally in this final rule. In particular, DOE is specifying in section 2.2.1 of Appendices A and B that, for refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines with products arranged horizontally (

e.g.,

on shelves or in product spirals), standard test packages must be placed in the refrigerated compartment(s) in the following locations, as shown in Figure III.1:

1) For odd-number shelves, when counting starting from the bottom shelf, standard test packages shall be placed at:

a) the left-most next-to-vend product location,

b) the right-most next-to-vend product location, and

c) for equipment with greater than or equal to five product locations on each shelf, the next-to-vend product location in the center of the shelf (

i.e.,

equidistant from the left-most and right-most next-to-vend product locations) if there are an odd number of next-to-vend products on the shelf or the next-to-vend product location immediately to the right and to the left of the center position if there are an even number of next-to-vend products on the shelf.

2) For even-numbered shelves, when counting from the bottom shelf, standard test packages shall be placed at either:

a) for equipment with less than or equal to six next-to-vend product locations on each shelf, the next-to-vend product location(s)

(1) one location towards the center from the left-most next-to-vend product location and (2) one location towards the center from the right-most next-to-vend product location, or

For equipment with three next-to-vend product locations on each shelf, the next-to-vend product location one location towards the center from the left-most next-to-vend product location is the same position as the next-to-vend product location one location towards the center from the right-most next-to-vend product location.

b) for equipment with greater than six next-to-vend product locations on each shelf, the next-to-vend product locations (1) two locations towards the center from the left-most next-to-vend product location and (2) two locations toward the center from the right-most next-to-vend product location.

ER31JY15.022

As beverage vending machines with products arranged vertically, in stacks, typically have far fewer next-to-vend beverage locations, DOE has determined that such a sampling procedure is not necessary for this equipment.

8. Defining “Fully Cooled”

The 2009 BVM final rule established DOE energy conservation standards for beverage vending machines in two

equipment classes: Class A and Class B refrigerated beverage vending machines. 74 FR 44914, 44968 (Aug. 31, 2009). The distinguishing criterion between these two equipment classes is whether the equipment is fully cooled. 10 CFR 431.292.

DOE regulations, however, have never defined the term “fully cooled.” In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to define “fully cooled” as a condition in which the refrigeration system of a beverage vending machine cools products throughout the entire refrigerated volume of a machine instead of being directed at a fraction (or zone) of the refrigerated volume as measured by the average temperature of the standard test packages in the furthest from the next-to-vend product locations, which would be required to be no more than 10 °F above the integrated average temperature of the standard test packages in the next-to-vend product locations. 79 FR 46908, 46916 (Aug. 11, 2014).

The proposed definition was predicated upon the different methods of cooling used in Class A and Class B machines and the customer utility provided by fully cooling the refrigerated space. Maintaining all refrigerated beverages within 10 °F of the next-to-vend beverage temperature typically allows customers to select from more beverages and ensures that the customer will receive a properly cooled product, regardless of the product's vertical location in the machine. 79 FR at 46915-46917. DOE selected a temperature range of 10 °F, based on feedback from manufacturers, as a reasonable temperature bound to differentiate fully cooled beverage vending machines. DOE also verified this proposed temperature range based on limited testing of beverage vending machines currently available on the market to determine the typical temperature variability observed between the next-to-vend and furthest from next-to-vend beverages in Class A and Class B equipment, respectively.

Id.

To accompany DOE's proposed definition of fully cooled, the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR also proposed to adopt an optional test method that could be used to quantitatively differentiate between Class A and Class B equipment. To confirm whether a given BVM model is fully cooled, DOE proposed that temperature measurements be taken at the next-to-vend and furthest from next-to-vend temperature positions to confirm the proposed 10 °F temperature differential. For beverage vending machines with horizontal product rows, or spirals, DOE's proposed test procedure required a standard test package at the back of the horizontal product rows in the four corners of the machine (

e.g.

, bottom right, bottom left, top right, and top left). For beverage vending machines with standard products configured in a vertical stack, the proposal included an additional standard test package at the top of each stack. To determine if a given beverage vending machine is fully cooled, manufacturers would calculate the average temperature of the standard test packages in the furthest from the next-to-vend product location over the entire test period and compare that value to the integrated average temperature of standard test packages in the next-to-vend beverage positions. If the difference between these two values was less than or equal to 10 °F, the tested unit would be considered fully cooled. 79 FR at 46917.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE noted that this test method would not be required to certify equipment, but would be the method used by DOE to determine the appropriate equipment class for enforcement purposes. Therefore, DOE noted that its proposed definition and test method would not require manufacturers to take any additional temperature measurements beyond what is currently specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 and, as such, would not increase the burden associated with conducting the DOE BVM test procedure.

Id.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE requested comments on its proposed definition of “fully cooled” and the proposed fully cooled validation test method. DOE was particularly interested in whether the proposed definition aligns with the classifications of Class A and Class B equipment currently used in industry.

Id.

ASHRAE SPC 32.1 stated they are considering the removal of product class definitions from the new ASHRAE test method. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 3) Coca-Cola commented that configurations such as “zone cooled” and “fully cooled” did not apply to the test method, but to how the machine was rated. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p.4) Similarly, SVA commented that two classifications for beverage vending machines were not needed. (SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2) SVA also suggested that DOE use the same test procedure for both classes. (SVA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at pp. 50-55)

In response to the definition of “fully cooled” proposed in the BVM test procedure NOPR, several interested parties recommended that DOE consider an alternate differentiation between equipment types to better capture differences in energy consumption, and suggested the presence of a transparent or opaque front and the arrangement of products within the machine as potential differentiating criteria that are more appropriate and consistent with the differentiation between equipment configurations applied in industry. (CA IOUs, No. 0005 at p. 1; Sanden Vendo America Inc., Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at p. 52). Many interested parties also commented regarding the difficulty of establishing a quantitative temperature threshold to differentiate fully cooled equipment from non-fully cooled equipment that would be applicable across all BVM models. (AMS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at p. 54; SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 0009 at p. 1). Coca-Cola and SVA also noted the potential for additional burden associated with the fully cooled verification test procedure. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 4; SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2)

DOE considered all the comments received regarding the classification of beverage vending machines based on the definition of “fully cooled.” In light of the extent and scope of the comments received in response to the amendments proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR regarding the proposed definition of fully cooled, alternative criteria for differentiating Class A and Class B equipment, and the optional fully cooled verification test protocol, DOE wishes to further consider potential classification options and criteria suggested by interested parties. As such, DOE will respond to these comments raised by interested parties and propose an alternative approach as a part of the associated ongoing energy conservation standards rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0022)). This approach will provide interested parties an additional opportunity to provide DOE with feedback and suggestions regarding the appropriate classification criteria and definitions for Class A and Class B beverage vending machines.

9. Placement of Thermocouples During Testing

The DOE test procedure established by the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule does not specify how to position thermocouple wires during testing. In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify that, in order to avoid compromising the thermal integrity of the vending machine, thermocouple wires should not be run through the dispensing door. Instead, the wires should be fed through the

door gasket, as it will mold around them and maintain a better thermal seal for the cooled compartment. DOE proposed to add text to the BVM test procedure in Appendices A and B specifying that sensors shall be installed in a manner that does not affect energy performance. Specifically, DOE proposed to amend the regulatory text to require that thermocouple wires be run through the door gasket and not through the dispensing door of the beverage vending machine such that the sensor pathway is sealed to prohibit airflow between the interior refrigerated volume and the ambient room air. 79 FR 46908, 46917-46918 (Aug. 11, 2014).

In response to DOE's proposal regarding the routing of temperature sensors and associated wiring, AMS, SVA, Royal Vendors, and Crane Merchandising Systems (CMS) commented at the NOPR public meeting they should be able to route thermocouples using whatever method was best for their machine, including destructive methods such as drilling holes. (AMS, No. 0004 at pp. 59-62; SVA, No. 0004 at pp. 62-63; Royal Vendors, No. 0004 at pp. 63-64; CMS, No. 0004 at p. 65) Royal Vendors emphasized that the routing method used by other manufactures would not work for their machines and noted that they route thermocouple wire through a removable panel in the base of the machine where the refrigerant lines enter the machine. (Royal Vendors, No. 0004 at pp. 63-64) CMS suggested that DOE did not need to provide specificity as to the placement of thermocouples for testing beyond requiring that they be routed in a manner to reduce airflow and not run through the dispensing door. (CMS, No. 0004 at p. 65) AMS suggested that manufacturers could provide documentation with their certification reports regarding the method that was used to route thermocouples when testing the beverage vending machine to establish the certified rating. AMS also recommended that DOE use the same method used by manufacturers when conducting enforcement testing to ensure consistent results. (AMS, No. 0004 at pp. 59-61) SVA also recommended DOE consider the reduction of thermocouple placements in Class A “shelf style” beverage vending machines in order to reduce the effects of airflow caused by thermocouple wire routing. (SVA, No. 0008 at p. 1)

DOE considered all the comments received regarding the placement of thermocouples during testing. Manufacturers commented that many methods may be used to route thermocouples and DOE should not limit the allowable methods, since some methods are more feasible than the others based on the specific equipment design. However, DOE acknowledges that without specific, verifiable requirements, it is difficult to ensure testing is conducted in accordance with any such test procedure requirement. This is an issue both for certification testing, and for ensuring repeatability of test results in DOE assessment and enforcement testing.

As such, in this final rule, DOE maintains that the thermocouple wires should not be run through dispensing doors compromising the thermal integrity of the equipment, but instead should be run through the door gasket or other alternate routes that would not affect the performance of the machine. DOE is adopting requirements regarding routing of thermocouples and other sensor wires in section 2.2.2 of Appendices A and B.

DOE does not intend to limit the manner in which manufacturers could route thermocouple wire when conducting certification testing and will continue to allow manufacturers to use whatever method they deem appropriate, including drilling holes in the side of the beverage vending machine through which the thermocouple wire can be routed and caulked in place to limit airflow. However, DOE notes that, even with precise documentation, it may be difficult to repeat exactly what was done by manufacturers during certification testing. Further, DOE does not typically employ methods that require physical destruction or permanent modification of the unit when conducting assessment or enforcement testing. Therefore, when testing a BVM model during assessment or enforcement testing, DOE will route thermocouple wire through the door gasket such that the malleable gasket material is compressed around the thermocouple wire to ensure a good seal and prohibiting airflow between the interior refrigerated volume and the ambient test chamber air. If a manufacturer uses a specific method for routing of the thermocouple wires during their own certification testing, it must document these specific steps as part of the test data records maintained by the manufacturer in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.

10. Establishing Testing Provisions at the Lowest Application Product Temperature

The DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines requires that an average next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F be maintained throughout the test, as discussed in section III.A.7 of this final rule. While DOE recognizes that the majority of covered beverage vending machines can be tested at the established rating temperature of 36 °F, DOE is aware of some unique BVM models that are designed to operate much higher than 36 °F and cannot operate at 36 °F, and thus cannot be tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure. Manufacturers of such equipment currently must request a test procedure waiver to comply with DOE's energy conservation standards in accordance with 10 CFR 431.401.

DOE issued a final rule amending its regulations governing petitions for waiver and interim waiver from DOE test procedures for consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment. 79 FR 26591 (May 9, 2014). This final rule was effective on June 9, 2014.

Therefore, in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to its test procedure for beverage vending machines to allow covered beverage vending machines that cannot achieve an average next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F to instead be tested at their lowest application product temperature. 79 FR 46908, 46418 (Aug. 11, 2014).

DOE proposed that the lowest application product temperature would describe the lowest temperature at which a beverage vending machine model is capable of maintaining next-to-vend beverages and could correspond to the lowest setting on a unit's thermostat. For beverage vending machines that cannot maintain an average next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F, the lowest application product temperature provision would specify a revised average beverage temperature for beverages in the next-to-vend product location, but would not modify any other requirements of the DOE test procedure. Equipment tested and certified using the lowest application product temperature would be required to meet the standard applicable for its equipment class and refrigerated volume, and the manufacturer would be required to maintain records of the lowest application product temperature at which a given model was rated.

Id.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE requested comments on its proposal to adopt a lowest application product temperature provision for covered beverage vending machines that cannot be tested at the specified average next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F.

DOE received several comments on the applicability of establishing testing provisions at the lowest application product temperature. AMS and SVA

noted that all their machines can meet the 36 °F requirement. (CMS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at pp. 75-76; SVA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at pp. 71-72) However, AMS commented that they have machines where the lowest temperature setting is 40 °F and special software is required to set the system at 36 °F. (AMS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at p. 71)

DOE received several comments in support of the proposed lowest application product temperature provision. Specifically, Coca-Cola agreed with DOE that the lowest application temperature should be used only when the average next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F could not be achieved; in cases where 36 °F could not be achieved, the “lowest application temperature” should be the average temperature for which a ±1 °F tolerance is maintained for steady state operation. However, Coca-Cola added that the lowest application product temperature should not be based on the thermostat set point, but instead should be based on the lowest temperature the case is designed to operate at as specified by the manufacturer. Coca-Cola further commented that lowest application product temperature should only be applicable to cases that cannot operate as cold as 36 °F ± 1 °F; it should not be applicable to machines designed to vend frozen products such as ice or ice cream. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 5) ASHRAE SPC 32.1 also supported DOE's proposal to adopt a lowest application product temperature provision for covered beverage vending machines that cannot be tested at the specified average next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F, but recommends that the scope be limited to beverage vending machines only, and not machines designed exclusively to vend snacks or other perishable products. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 3)

CA IOUs also expressed their support of the alternative lowest application product temperature provision for beverage vending machines that cannot be tested at 36 °F, but suggested that the test procedure include a requirement for the manufacturer to indicate the temperature at which the beverage vending machine was tested. (CA IOUs, No. 0005 at p. 2)

SVA disagreed with DOE's proposal to test units at the lowest application temperature, but noted that if allowed, the product should be identified within a different classification, and the temperature must be clearly labeled on the machine and identified in the DOE listing. (SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2) CMS also suggested that a new class of equipment be introduced for models that cannot meet the 36 °F requirement to help people differentiate energy efficient models from those that are not tested at the 36 °F requirement. (CMS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at pp. 77-80) NEEA commented that beverage vending machines that do not go down to 36 °F may pass the DOE test but be “energy hogs.” (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at p. 72-75) Coca-Cola commented that refrigerated vending machines which had their lowest applicable product temperature substantially higher than 36 °F were likely not beverage vending machines and that they should therefore not be included in this test procedure, but instead receive some alternative treatment. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 5)

Regarding how to determine the lowest application product temperature for applicable equipment, AMS recommended that the lowest application product temperature be determined by actual measurement when the machine is operating at its lowest temperature. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 4) ASHRAE SPC 32.1 stated that the lowest thermostat setting would be a reasonable approach for most equipment, but emphasized that the reported lowest application product temperature should be the integrated average temperature measurement, not the thermostat set point. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 3) NEEA suggested that a proportional method of scaling the allowable energy consumption based on the change in temperature could be used for equipment that cannot reach the 36 °F requirement. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at pp. 82-83) SVA commented that determining energy use can be more complicated than just proportional scaling. (SVA, No. 0004-1 at p. 84)

Coca-Cola commented that testing a beverage vending machine by the proposed clarifications of Appendix A would render different test results from the current test method due to changes in temperatures and the treatment of accessories. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 1)

DOE considered all comments submitted by interested parties regarding testing at the lowest application product temperature. Commenters generally agreed with DOE's proposal to test equipment that cannot be operated at an integrated average temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F at the lowest application product temperature, and stated that the manufacturer should be required to record the integrated average temperature at which the machine is rated. Thus, in this final rule, DOE is adopting provisions in section 2.1.3 of Appendices A and B to test beverage vending machines that cannot be operated at an average next-to-vend temperature of 36 °F ± 1 °F to instead be tested at their lowest application product temperature, as proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR.

Some commenters also mentioned that machines tested at the lowest application product temperature should be identified in a different classification, and that the temperature should be identified on the label and in the DOE listing. DOE notes that DOE's proposal regarding the lowest application product temperature test provisions included a requirement to report the lowest application product temperature of a BVM basic model to DOE in the BVM basic model's certification report. In this final rule, DOE is also specifying that equipment tested and certified using the lowest application product temperature will be required to meet the standard applicable for its equipment class and refrigerated volume. DOE acknowledges that it will be easier for such equipment to meet the applicable energy conservation standard, as the energy use of beverage vending machines is a function of the temperature differential between the refrigerated temperature and the ambient conditions. Since the lowest application product temperature test provisions require a higher integrated average temperature, the measured DEC would be lower than a similar case tested at 36 °F ± 1 °F. DOE reiterates that the lowest application product temperature test provisions are only applicable to equipment that cannot be operated at 36 °F ± 1 °F and, as such, believes such test provisions will only be applicable to a small number of models. Therefore, DOE does not believe separate standards for such equipment are justified. In response to NEEA's proposal to scale the applicable MDEC based on the temperature differential between the tested lowest application product temperature and the specified rating temperature of 36 °F, DOE agrees with SVA that determining the appropriate energy conservation standard level can be more complicated than just proportional scaling. For example, fixed energy consuming components, such as lighting and display signage, will not scale based on the temperature differential between the refrigerated compartment and the ambient air. However, DOE will monitor the number of models certifying under the lowest application product temperature provisions and, if a significant portion or increase in BVM

models using such provisions is observed, take any necessary corrective action at that time.

DOE agrees with Coca-Cola and ASHRAE SPC 32.1's comment that the lowest application product temperature provisions should be limited to refrigerated beverage vending machines that operate warmer than 36 °F ± 1 °F and not freezers or other categories of equipment that are not intended to vend sealed beverages, since beverage vending machines are limited to commercial refrigerators. DOE notes that this test procedure and the lowest application product temperature provisions are only applicable to equipment that meets DOE's definition of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine; namely equipment that (1) is a commercial refrigerator, (2) refrigerates sealed beverages and (3) dispenses such sealed beverages on payment. 10 CFR 431.292. In the 2014 commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure final rule, DOE adopted a new definition of commercial refrigerator, defined as a unit of commercial refrigeration equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are capable of operating at or above 32 °F ± 2 °F. 79 FR 22278, 22307-22308 (April 21, 2014). DOE has determined that this definition is also applicable to beverage vending machines. As such, to clarify that DOE's BVM test procedure and energy conservation standards only apply to refrigerated equipment and not freezers that operate below 32 °F, in this final rule, DOE is amending the definition of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine to explicitly reference the definition of commercial refrigerator located at 10 CFR 431.62. DOE notes that amending the definition of a refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine is necessary since the term “commercial refrigerator” is referenced in the existing definition, but the definition did not explicitly establish that the term “commercial refrigerator” refers to that defined under subpart C to part 431 of title 10 of the CFR, which pertains to commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE believes this effectively responds to Coca-Cola and ASHRAE SPC 32.1's comments as, in DOE's view, it is extremely unlikely that a beverage vending machine would be unable to operate at 36 °F ± 1 °F and still be able to operate at or above 32 °F ± 2 °F. A beverage vending machine that operates only between 32 and 34 °F, however unlikely, would meet DOE's definition of refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machine. In such a case, the beverage vending machine could be rated under the lowest application product temperature provision, as adopted, and the lowest application product temperature provision would be 34 °F.

DOE acknowledges ASHRAE SPC 32.1's affirmation of DOE's proposal that the lowest application product temperature should be determined for equipment with thermostats by the lowest thermostat setting. In response to Coca-Cola's comment that the lowest application product temperature should not be based on the thermostat set point, but instead should be based on the lowest temperature the case is designed to operate at as specified by the manufacturer, DOE notes that such a requirement may be difficult to enforce and could create a loophole whereby equipment could advertise temperatures above 38 °F, but be able to operate as cold as 36 °F in the field. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is electing to maintain the specification that, for equipment with a thermostat, the reported lowest application product temperature is the actual measured integrated average temperature when the thermostat is set at its lowest setting and not the reading on the thermostat, as suggested by ASHRAE and AMS. As DOE did not receive any comments on the specification of the lowest application product temperature for equipment without thermostats, DOE is not including any additional specificity in determining the lowest application product temperature for such equipment at this time. However, DOE notes that documentation supporting the determination of the LAPT should be included as part of the test data records maintained by the manufacturer in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71 underlying certification.

Regarding Coca-Cola's comment that testing using the lowest application product temperature may have an impact on the measured DEC, DOE acknowledges that changes in the integrated average temperature of the interior refrigerated volume will alter the measured DEC of BVM models. However, as stated earlier, DOE notes that such a provision is only applicable to equipment that cannot operate at 36 °F ± 1 °F and DOE believes this represents very few models. Also, under the BVM test procedure adopted in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, such equipment would be required to apply for a waiver, since it currently cannot be tested. To date, DOE has not received any waiver requests regarding BVM models that cannot operate at the appropriate rating temperature.

With respect to the comment from AMS that some models may be produced such that the lowest temperature setting is greater than the test temperature specified by the DOE test procedure and special software is required to set the system at 36 °F, DOE notes that all beverage vending machines must be tested and certified as shipped and designed for use in the field. Therefore the use of specific controls designed solely for use when testing the equipment that are not available to a purchaser or operator of the equipment would not be allowed in the DOE test procedure. If the machine, as distributed in commerce, is unable to meet the temperature requirements of the DOE test procedure, then the machine would be tested using its lowest application product temperature as discussed in section III.A.10 of this final rule.

11. Treatment of Certain Accessories During Testing

In reviewing the DOE test procedure for beverage vending machines, DOE recognized that the existing test procedure does not clearly specify the appropriate operation of some components and accessories when conducting the test procedure. DOE understands that there is room for various interpretations of the requirements for equipment configuration where the DOE test procedure is currently ambiguous or silent. In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify the proper configuration and operation of several specific components and accessories in the DOE test procedure to remove this ambiguity and improve the repeatability of the DOE test procedure. 79 FR 46908, 46919-46922 (Aug. 11, 2014).

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify that, in general, any accessory or component that is integral to the intended operation of the beverage vending machine must be operational during the test. In this context, DOE interpreted “integral” to mean necessary for operation of the BVM model in a manner that meets the DOE definition of beverage vending machine—

i.e.,

necessary for the BVM model to cool bottled or canned beverages and/or dispense bottled or canned beverages on payment. In addition, DOE proposed to clarify that any manually controllable energy-consuming accessories that are integral to the performance of the BVM refrigeration system must be in place during testing if offered for sale with that basic model and must be tested at the most energy-consuming setting. DOE

also proposed that accessories that are controlled by automatic controls and are not configurable by the BVM operator must be tested in the automatic state.

Id.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify these requirements by adding language in Appendices A and B regarding the appropriate treatment of components and accessories during testing. 79 FR at 46935, 46937.

In addition to these general requirements, DOE believed it would be clearer and more precise to specify, to the extent possible, the appropriate treatment of several common components and accessories that might typically be found on beverage vending machines. Therefore, in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE also proposed to include provisions regarding the treatment of 11 specific components, including (1) payment mechanisms; (2) interior lighting; (3) external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens; (4) anti-sweat and other electric resistance heaters; (5) condensate pan heaters; (6) illuminated temperature displays; (7) condensate filters; (8) security covers; (9) coated coils; (10) general purpose outlets; and (11) crankcase heaters and electric resistance heaters for cold weather. 79 FR at 46919-46922, 46935-46938.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE also emphasized that the proposed clarifications served only to unambiguously clarify the intent of the current DOE test procedure and, as such, would be required for equipment testing as of 180 days after publication of this final rule.

In response to DOE's proposed treatment of accessories in general, DOE received multiple comments regarding the treatment of accessories not discussed explicitly in section III.A.11 of the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR and their configuration during testing. ASHRAE SPC 32.1, Coca-Cola, and California IOUs agreed with DOE that the test procedure should include components required to maintain the primary operation of the machine to represent field performance, including components used for maintaining product temperatures, accepting payment, allowing user selection of product, and vending product during testing. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 4; Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 7; CA IOUs, No. 0005 at p.2) ASHRAE SPC 32.1 listed the following as potential accessories that could be included on a beverage vending machine: payment devices (

e.g.,

coin mechanisms, bill validators, credit card readers, and mobile phone payment), ADA accessibility equipment, screens (

e.g.,

product selection touchscreens and pure advertisement screens), computers that interface with screens, Wi-Fi routers, trash compactors, and cold weather heating elements. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at pp. 3-4)

AMS, SVA, and Coca-Cola also supported DOE's proposal in Appendix A to de-energize accessories non-essential to the vending process and unnecessary to the machine's basic operation and they agreed that such systems should be on if required for product selection or vending. However, they commented that secondary systems, including secondary payment systems, should not be required during testing. (AMS, No. 0007 at pp. 4-7; SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2; Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 7) Specifically, Coca-Cola noted that new beverage vending machines are being developed that incorporate new capabilities, utilize additional transformative technologies, and are more innovative, and they acknowledged that these additional services will add to the energy consumption of the beverage vending machine in the field. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 8) Coca-Cola provided the following list of potential accessories that could be included on a beverage vending machine: reverse vending systems for waste management, message displays and interactive video walls not necessary for product selection, television monitors, routers, and communication systems such as modems and blue-tooth devices, consumer award management systems (that may receive caps or coupons), and additional secondary payment systems (

e.g.,

card readers, key-fob readers). (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 6) However, Coca-Cola recommended that these features not be considered when establishing a basic rating for the equipment as a beverage vending machine. Coca-Cola further recommended that, if such energy consumption were to be considered, the equipment be subject to different standards that account for the additional functionality the machines provide. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 8)

AMS noted that they had encountered beverage vending machines with a wide variety of accessories, including cell phone/laptop battery chargers, Wi-Fi hotspots, reverse vending equipment (trash compactors), and power assist features for handicapped consumers, in addition to the accessories outlined in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR. AMS agreed with DOE's proposal that such accessories be de-energized or set to their lowest energy consuming state during testing under Appendix A. However, in Appendix B, AMS recommended that such accessories only be de-energized or set to their lowest energy consuming state if the BVM controls would cause the accessories to automatically enter such states under the conditions of the test. AMS clarified that, if such accessories can be configured to operate at all times, they should be left energized and operating during the test to capture the representative field performance of the unit. (AMS, No. 0007 at pp. 6-7)

California IOUs agreed with AMS that the energy consumption of such features should be captured, and they recommended that the new test procedure have provisions for including new but prevalent accessories like networking capabilities and large displays while testing. (CA IOUs, No. 0005 at p.2)

DOE agrees with the comments received from ASHRAE SPC 32.1, Coca-Cola, California IOUs, SVA, and AMS suggesting that the operation of components necessary to provide the “primary functionality” of the beverage vending machine as it would be installed in the field should be operational during testing. DOE interprets “components necessary for primary functionality” to mean the components necessary to cool products and vend products on payment. However, as discussed further in section III.A.11.a, in response to comments from SVA, AMS, and Coca-Cola, DOE is also allowing for flexibility regarding the treatment of payment mechanisms to accommodate typical equipment testing practices in the industry.

DOE is adopting clarifying language in Appendices A and B specifying that the rated beverage vending machine must only include sufficient functionality necessary for cooling and vending sealed beverages (except for payment mechanisms) during testing, including functionality necessary for temperature management, product inventory, product merchandising, product selection, and product transport and delivery. Appendices A and B will further specify that any accessories not fundamental to the primary operation of the equipment be de-energized during testing, or placed in the lowest energy consuming state if the component cannot be de-energized without affecting the fundamental functionality of the beverage vending machine. That is, if the accessory or component is required for the BVM model to cool bottled or canned beverages and/or dispense bottled or canned beverages on payment, then the accessory is required to be in place and operational during testing. Accessories such as reverse vending for waste management, wireless

portals, and other systems that do not impact the performance of the machine must be de-energized during testing, or placed in the lowest energy consuming state. DOE notes that this language and approach is consistent with that being considered by ASHRAE SPC 32.1.

DOE believes that testing with only those devices and accessories necessary for primary functionality of the beverage vending machine for its fundamental purpose of cooling and vending refrigerated beverages provides a representative and consistent basis for comparing the energy performance of beverage vending machines. DOE acknowledges the concerns of interested parties that additional accessories may increase the energy consumption of beverage vending machines in the field. However, as noted by Coca-Cola, these functions are secondary and tangential to the functionality of the equipment as a beverage vending machine. DOE also agrees with commenters that, given the number and variety of such potential accessories, it is more consistent and straightforward to test equipment with any such auxiliary features de-energized or placed in the lowest energy consuming state.

In response to AMS's comment that only those devices that are automatically placed in their lowest energy consuming state when installed and energized be allowed to enter such a state during testing, DOE believes that its adopted approach provides the most representative, repeatable, and comparable performance for tested BVM equipment. However, DOE notes that under Appendix A, any components or accessories that are controlled by automatic controls that are permanently operational and cannot be adjusted by the machine operator must be operated in the automatic state, in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 23.1-2010. In Appendix B, DOE is adopting more specific treatment for automatic controls, including both those that can be adjusted by the machine operator and those that cannot. DOE's provisions for these “accessory low power mode” controls are described further in section III.B.2.

Coca-Cola also commented that testing a beverage vending machine using the proposed clarifications of Appendix A would render different test results from the current test method due to changes in temperatures and treatment of accessories. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 1)

In response to Coca-Cola's comment that the amendments in Appendix A will affect the measured energy consumption of refrigerated beverage vending machines, DOE reiterates that the measured energy consumption under the DOE test procedure is not affected; the amendments and clarifications included in Appendix A serve only to clarify the provisions of the existing BVM test procedure and ensure equipment are tested consistently among manufacturers and test labs.

The following sections III.A.11.a through III.A.11.k discuss the proposed treatment of 11 specific features, components, and accessories under the DOE test procedure, as well as any comments received and the specific amendments DOE is adopting in this final rule for those 11 specific components.

a. Payment Mechanisms

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE stated its belief that payment mechanisms are integral to the vending function of the beverage vending machine and, accordingly, should be in place and functional during testing. Specifically, DOE proposed that when testing a vending machine, the most energy-consuming combination of payment mechanisms should be used. 79 FR 46908, 46919 (Aug. 11, 2014). DOE also noted that all other BVM models equipped with less energy-consumptive combinations of payment mechanisms may be listed as different individual models covered under that basic model or as unique basic models, if manufacturers wish to certify and make representations regarding the energy use of each combination of money processing equipment.

Id.

In response to DOE's proposal, AMS objected to the inclusion of any money processing accessories as part of Appendix A or Appendix B during testing based on the fact that beverage vending machines usually are not shipped with these accessories and that most, if not all, of the BVM manufacturers currently omit these accessories while testing. (AMS, No. 0007 at pp. 4-5) SVA urged DOE to not consider payment mechanisms during testing because of the large number of variations involved, keeping the baseline more consistent across models and manufacturers. (SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2) AMS and SVA also noted that including payment mechanisms would make the testing process burdensome, as there are a large number of different models and manufacturers of these money processing accessories. (AMS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at pp. 120-121; SVA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at pp. 121-122 and SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2) Coca-Cola commented that machines are typically sold without payment systems and disagreed with DOE's analysis that the most energy-consuming combination of payment mechanisms be used for the test. Additionally, Coca-Cola noted that manufacturers had standard payment systems for machines, and recommended that the standard payment systems be used for the test. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 7) Conversely, NEEA commented that the test procedure should include payment mechanisms, as this reflects field conditions. (NEEA, No. 0009 at p. 2) During the public meeting, SVA and NEEA suggested that payment mechanisms should be included as part of Appendix B only. (SVA, No. 0004 at pp. 121-122; NEEA, No. 0004 at pp. 122-123)

DOE considered all comments received regarding the treatment of payment mechanisms in developing the provisions adopted in this final rule. DOE agrees with the comment from NEEA that payment mechanisms should be included in the test procedure to reflect field conditions. However, DOE understands that due to the wide variety of available payment mechanism combinations, determining and testing with the most energy-consuming combination of payment mechanisms may be burdensome for manufacturers. DOE realizes that, as beverage vending machines are often sold or shipped without payment mechanisms in place, BVM manufacturers may not have control or knowledge of the payment mechanism that may be installed in the field and, as such, selecting the most energy-consuming combination, as originally proposed by DOE, may not be feasible.

Based on the comments submitted by interested parties, DOE considered several options to account for the energy use of payment the mechanisms. Given that payment mechanisms are variable and are not always included in the machine at the time of sale, DOE understands that it is difficult to unambiguously specify a “representative” payment mechanism or device combination that would be applicable to all BVM basic models and consistent across all units of each model. With this in mind, DOE believes that conducting physical testing of beverage vending machines with no payment mechanisms installed, as opposed to testing with the payment mechanisms in place, is the most straightforward, repeatable, and unambiguous approach. DOE notes that ASHRAE SPC 32.1 is also currently considering updating ASHRAE 32.1 to specify that testing be performed without payment mechanisms installed.

However, DOE maintains that payment mechanisms are integral to the vending function of the beverage vending machine and, therefore, represent part of the primary functionality of the beverage vending machine, as discussed in III.A.11. Accordingly, DOE believes that it is important for the energy consumption of a payment mechanism to be captured in the DEC of a beverage vending machine. To provide a standardized and consistent method of accounting for payment mechanism energy consumption when a BVM model is being tested without such a device or devices installed, DOE is specifying a default energy consumption value for payment mechanisms that will be added to the tested primary rated energy consumption per day (

) shown in section 7.2.3.1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 32.1-2010 to determine the DEC of tested equipment.

To determine the default payment mechanism energy consumption value that would be representative of the typical energy consumption of such devices in the field, DOE conducted a search of available payment mechanisms for beverage vending machines and their respective published power or energy consumption values. Through this search, DOE found 25 different models of payment mechanisms: 11 coin mechanisms, 11 bill validators, and 3 credit card readers. DOE found that coin mechanisms have an average idle mode power consumption of 7.1W, while bill validators have an average idle mode power consumption of 6.8W and credit card readers have an average idle mode power consumption of 12W. DOE referenced the idle mode energy consumption of these devices because no vending occurs during the BVM test procedure.

DOE calculated the average daily energy consumption for each device category based on the average power consumption estimates for each of the three payment mechanism categories. DOE estimates that coin mechanisms consume approximately 0.17 kWh/day, bill validators consume approximately 0.16 kWh/day, and credit card readers consume approximately 0.29 kWh/day. DOE notes that these values are representative of the amount of energy such devices would consume if installed on a beverage vending machine tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure. After considering these representative energy consumption values and the variability in the payment mechanism available to the manufacturer to install in the machine, DOE weighted the average daily energy consumption of the three most comment payment mechanisms. Since credit card readers are often leased from a separate company, the energy consumption of coin mechanisms and bill validators were weighted more heavily than the energy consumption of credit card readers. After weighting the representative energy consumption values, DOE determined that a default daily energy consumption value of 0.20 kWh/day is an appropriate representative value for the energy consumption associated with payment mechanisms. This value is also representative of a worst-case coin mechanism or bill validator because it is higher than the average energy consumption of the coin mechanisms or bill validators. DOE acknowledges that any given BVM basic model may have a payment mechanism or combination of payment mechanisms that uses more or less energy than this default value when installed in the field. However, for the purposes of rating equipment based on testing conducted in accordance with the DOE test procedure, the beverage vending machine shall be tested without any payment mechanism installed (or with any existing payment mechanisms de-energized or set to the lowest energy consuming state, if it cannot be de-energized) and the DEC rating shall be determined as the sum of the measured primary daily energy consumption per day and the default payment mechanism energy consumption value (0.20 kWh/day). Any representations regarding the energy consumption of equipment rated under this approach must be made based on this calculated DEC, regardless of the payment mechanism or combination of payment mechanisms with which any given BVM unit is actually sold.

Regarding the comment from Coca-Cola that manufacturers may wish to test with standard payment systems for the beverage vending machines they produce, DOE wishes to clarify that manufacturers must make representations regarding the energy consumption of beverage vending machines based on the testing and calculations performed under the DOE test procedure. DOE surveyed many BVM manufacturers and payment mechanism manufacturers regarding the existence of any default or “standard” payment mechanism device and was not able to identify one that was applicable to all BVM manufacturers and models. As such, DOE is instead adopting an approach whereby beverage vending machines that differ only based on number and type of payment mechanism may be certified under a single basic model listing based on the tested energy consumption of the BVM model with no payment mechanism installed (or the payment mechanism de-energized or set to the lowest energy consuming state, if it cannot be de-energized) plus the 0.20 kWh/day default energy consumption value for payment mechanisms.

In response to SVA and NEEA's suggestion that DOE include the energy consumption of payment mechanisms in Appendix B only, DOE reiterates its belief that money processing is an integral part of the primary functionality of the beverage vending machine, namely the vending function. DOE disagrees that the current test procedure does not include the energy consumption of the payment mechanisms. In fact, the current DOE test procedure for BVMs at 10 CFR 431.294(b) requires testing in accordance with the test procedures specified in section 4, “Instruments,” section 5, “Vending Machine Capacity,” section 6, “Test Conditions,” and sections 7.1 through 7.2.3.2, under “Test Procedures,” of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, “Methods of Testing for Rating Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned, and Other Sealed Beverages.” (Incorporated by reference, see § 431.293). More specifically, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 states that the machine shall be “installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions” and “operated with normal lighting and control settings, using only those energy management controls that are permanently operational and not capable of being adjusted by a machine operator” (7.1.1(a) and (d), respectively). DOE has interpreted these provisions of the test procedure as requiring the BVM to be tested with the payment mechanism as it would be installed in the field. As such, DOE is continuing to require testing of beverage vending machines in a manner that accounts for the energy consumption of all features that contribute to the primary functionality of the beverage vending machine, including payment mechanisms, in both Appendix A and Appendix B. Given the comment we received in response to DOE's proposal in the NOPR, DOE believes that it is important to clarify and streamline the applicability of the current test procedure provisions in Appendix A to reduce burden on manufacturers. Consequently, DOE is adopting a streamlined method of calculating and including the energy use with a typical payment system in sections 2.2.3.1 and 2.3 of Appendix A

and sections 2.2.5.1 and 2.3 of Appendix B.

b. Interior Lighting

Beverage vending machines typically include lighting to illuminate the vendible products, in the case of Class A equipment, or illuminate display panels that are part of the physical walls of the beverage vending machine, in the case of Class B equipment. In both cases, these lights are internal to the physical walls of the beverage vending machine and, thus, are deemed integral to the operation of the equipment. Through incorporation of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004, the DOE test procedure adopted in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule currently requires beverage vending machines to be tested with “normal lighting and control settings.” The revised ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010 includes the same requirement.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE recognized that this requirement could be interpreted differently in various circumstances and, as such, proposed to amend the regulatory text to clarify the treatment of internal lighting when conducting the DOE test procedure. Specifically, DOE proposed an amendment to the regulatory text stating that lighting that is contained within, or is part of the physical boundary of, the beverage vending machine established by the top, bottom, and side panels of the equipment be placed in its maximum energy consuming state, as DOE believes that the maximum energy consuming state is consistent with the “normal” setting and is the operation most commonly employed in the field. 79 FR at 46921.

In response to DOE's proposal in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, AMS, SVA, Coca-Cola, and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 supported DOE's proposal to specify that internal lighting operation must be operated in the maximum energy-consuming state during testing. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 6; SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2; Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 6; ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 3) SVA and AMS supported DOE's proposal to include such clarifications in both Appendices A and B, and noted that they both currently test equipment with the interior lighting in the maximum energy consuming state. (AMS, No. 0007 at p. 6; SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2) SVA further noted that software modes that shut off the lighting system when not in use were probably unlawful if used to influence the outcome of the energy consumption test. (SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2) Coca-Cola added that many of their machines employ energy management routines that have an impact on the lighting of the machine. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 6) However, ASHRAE SPC 32.1 and Coca-Cola cautioned that machines may have been tested differently in the past, and the new test procedure could significantly change energy consumption values previously reported. (ASHRAE SPC 32.1, No. 0011 at p. 3; Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 6)

DOE appreciates comments from AMS, SVA, Coca-Cola, and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 supporting DOE's proposal. Receiving no negative comments, in this final rule, DOE is clarifying that interior lighting that is contained within, or is part of the physical boundary of the beverage vending machine established by the top, bottom, and side panels of the equipment, shall be placed in its maximum energy consuming state for testing.

In response to the comments submitted by Coca-Cola and ASHRAE SPC 32.1 noting that previous tests may have been conducted using methods not consistent with the provisions DOE is adopting in this final rule, DOE reiterates that because the DOE test procedure was previously silent or ambiguous on the specific treatment of some components, it is possible that some BVM manufacturers misinterpreted DOE's test procedure and, thus, some BVM models were tested inconsistently. DOE acknowledges that some BVM models may require recertification based on these new clarifications. However, DOE continues to maintain that the clarified treatment of interior lighting serves only to unambiguously clarify the intent of the DOE test procedure. Therefore, DOE is adding this clarifying language to section 2.2.3.2 of Appendix A and section 2.2.5.2 of Appendix B for certifying equipment in accordance with existing and any amended energy conservation standards, respectively.

c. External Customer Display Signs, Lights, or Digital Screens

In addition to interior lighting, discussed in section III.A.11.b, DOE recognizes that some beverage vending machines may incorporate additional external customer display signs, lights, and/or digital screens outside of the body of the refrigerated BVM cabinet. In this case, such external customer display signs, lights, and/or digital screens are optional and are not integral to the cabinet, but external customer display signs, lights, may significantly increase the energy use of beverage vending machines that include those features. However, such external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens are not explicitly addressed in the DOE test procedure, as adopted in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, or in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2004 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010. In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify that customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens external to the beverage vending machine and not integral to the operation of the primary refrigeration or vending functions (

e.g.,

digital screens that are not necessary for consumers to make a product selection) may be disabled, disconnected, or otherwise de-energized. 79 FR at 46920-46921. However, in the case that the customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens are integral to the functionality of the beverage vending machine, in that it cannot perform the primary refrigeration and vending functions if such equipment is disabled or removed, DOE clarified that the integral customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens should be put in the lowest energy-consuming state that maintains primary functionality of the beverage vending machine. For example, if a digital screen performs the vending or money processing function, that screen would be placed in its lowest energy-consuming state that still allows the money processing feature to function; this would provide equitable treatment with other payment mechanisms that must be energized, as specified in section III.A.11.a.

Id.

DOE proposed to include this clarification in Appendix A, to be used when certifying equipment under existing standards, based on the fact that such external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens are not mentioned in the existing DOE test procedure, as adopted in the 2006 BVM test procedure final rule, and are peripheral to the primary functionality of a beverage vending machine, as discussed in section III.A.11. DOE also noted that such treatment is consistent with interpretation to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1-2010, which states that “the Standard (32.1) addresses the refrigerated/delivery system portion of the machine. Thus, any peripheral devices, not necessary for the basic function of the vending machine are not addressed by Standard 32.1.”

Id.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed similar treatment for Appendix B, but also proposed to define a new term, “standby mode” to more unambiguously specify the state in which external customer display signs, lights, and digital screens would be placed if they cannot be de-energized without affecting the primary functionality of the beverage vending machine under test. DOE proposed to

define standby mode as the mode of operation in which any external, integral customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens are connected to main power, do not produce the intended illumination, display, or interaction functionality, and can be switched into another mode automatically with only a remote user-generated or an internal signal. DOE proposed to clarify that, in Appendix B, that if the external, integral customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens do not have a standby mode, the integral customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens would be placed in the lowest energy-consuming state, and, if a digital screen performs the vending or money processing function, that screen should be placed in its lowest energy-consuming state that still allows the money processing feature to function, similar to Appendix A.

Id.

In response to DOE's proposed treatment of external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, AMS, SVA, and Coca-Cola supported DOE's proposal to de-energize accessories non-essential to the vending process and unnecessary to the machine's basic operation, and agreed that such systems should be on if required for product selection or vending. The commenters supported such a proposal for both Appendices A and B. (AMS, No. 0007 at pp. 6-7; SVA, No. 0008 at p. 2; Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 7) NEEA commented that capturing the standby energy usage of integral signage might drive manufacturers to move to external signage and discourage integral smart controls to reduce energy usage of integral signage. (NEEA, No. 0009 at p. 2)

DOE appreciates comments from AMS, SVA, and Coca-Cola supporting DOE's proposed treatment of external customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens. DOE acknowledges NEEA's comment regarding the potential for manufacturers to move to external signage to avoid accounting for the standby energy usage of internal signage, but believes that there is a limited capacity for them to do so, since any interior lighting used to illuminate product or equipment side panels will inherently be integral to the unit and, thus, must be operated in the maximum energy consumption state, as specified in earlier in this section. The one example where interior lighting that must be energized under the DOE test procedure might have opportunity to be replaced by an external display screen that does not have to be energized under the DOE test procedure may be on beverage vending machines that currently incorporate illuminated side panels to serve a marketing and advertising function. The illuminated side panels could, theoretically, be replaced by external digital screens. However, DOE notes that, based on DOE's review of existing Class B equipment, the illuminated side panels currently available on the market are typically quite large, covering the entire side of the beverage vending machine, and any replacement illuminated sign or digital screen would likely be equivalently large. DOE believes that such large display screens or individually manufactured external illuminated signage would be significantly more expensive than the current equipment design with interior lighting and, as such, DOE believes the likelihood that manufacturers will migrate to external signage solely to decrease the measured energy consumption of their equipment is very low.

Regarding the proposed definition of “standby mode” in Appendix B, AMS supported DOE's proposed definition, but stated that the list of accessories should be expanded from external, integral display signs, lighting, or digital screens to all accessories that might be applied to beverage vending machines. (AMS, No. 0007 at pp. 6-7) NRCan suggested renaming the standby mode to “external accessory standby mode” for clarity. (NRCan, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0004 at p. 116) Coca-Cola suggested an alternative definition. (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 8) Specifically, Coca-Cola suggested the following definition for standby mode for beverage vending machines: “Standby mode is the state that the vending machine is in when it does not have to deliver product, is not intended to deliver product, or cannot be used to select and purchase a product. In this mode of operation any powered element can be in a different state than when the machine is in normal operation delivering product to a consumer. Standby mode can be activated automatically by programming or by sensory devices monitoring internal functions or external conditions and activity.” (Coca-Cola, No. 0010 at p. 8)

DOE appreciates the comment from AMS supporting the definition of the standby mode for external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens. In response to expanding the applicability of the standby mode definition, to DOE's knowledge there are not any other accessories that the definition would impact in a way that is not already accounted for in the test procedure as adopted in this final rule. DOE considered the modifications in the comments from NRCan and Coca-Cola regarding the name and definition of standby mode as it applies to external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens. DOE agrees with NRCan's proposal to rename the definition of standby mode to be more specific to the accessories to which it is applied, and is incorporating such a change in this final rule. In response to Coca-Cola's suggested changes to the definition of standby mode, DOE believes the changes in fact alter the applicability and intent of the definition. Coca-Cola's suggested changes appear to apply to the beverage vending machine as a whole, rather than just the external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens. Consistent with NRCan's suggestion, DOE's standby mode definition is applicable to external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens and, as such, DOE believes that Coca-Cola's proposed edits are not applicable in this case.

Additionally, in light of consideration of the stakeholder comments after publication of the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE reviewed many styles of external customer display signs, lights, and digital screens and determined that the previously-proposed clarifications for Appendices A and B are materially the same. Specifically, both appendices clarify that customer display signs, lighting, and digital screens must be:

(1) Disabled, disconnected, or otherwise de-energized, if possible and if doing so does not interfere with the primary functionality of the beverage vending machine, or

(2) placed in its lowest energy consuming state or standby mode (in Appendix B) if the equipment cannot be de-energized, or

(3) placed in the lowest energy consuming state that maintains primary functionality of the beverage vending machine. As Table III.3 illustrates, the only difference between the proposed Appendices A and B methodologies is the incorporation of “standby mode” as the preferred operational state if the equipment cannot be de-energized or disconnected.

Table III.3—Summary of Proposed Operational State for External Display Signs, Lights, or Digital Screens in Appendix A and Appendix B in the 2014 BVM TP NOPR

External customer display sign, lights, or digital screen characteristics

Operational state

Appendix A

Appendix B

Can be de-energized and do not participate in primary functionality of the beverage vending machine

Disabled, disconnected, or otherwise de-energized

Disabled, disconnected, or otherwise de-energized.

Cannot be de-energized

Place in lowest energy consuming state

Placed in “standby mode,” if available, or lowest energy consuming state.

Necessary for primary functionality of beverage vending machine

Placed in lowest energy consuming state that maintains primary functionality of the beverage vending machine

Placed in lowest energy consuming state that maintains primary functionality of the beverage vending machine.

This difference between the proposed language for the two appendices would only result in a material difference in the test procedure if there is a difference between “standby mode” and the “lowest energy consuming state” for external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens that cannot be de-energized. However, for external customer display signs, lights, or digital screens DOE reviewed, the “standby mode” defined in Appendix B is the same as the “lowest energy consuming state” for equipment that cannot be de-energized and does not participate in the vending function of the beverage vending machine. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and consistency, in this final rule, DOE is aligning the treatment of external customer display signs, lights, and digital screens in Appendices A and B. In these final rule amendments, the definition of external accessory standby mode and the proposed treatment in Appendix B will be applicable to both appendices. Specifically, DOE is establishing provisions in section 2.2.3.3 of Appendix A and section 2.2.5.3 of Appendix B to clarify that all external display signs, lights, and digital screens should be de-energized or, if they cannot be de-energized without impacting the primary functionality of the equipment, placed in the external accessory standby mode (if available) or the lowest energy consuming state (if no external accessory standby mode is available) that maintains such functionality. DOE also is establishing a definition of external accessory standby mode. DOE proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR to define “standby mode” as the mode of operation in which the external, integral customer display signs, lighting, or digital screens are connected to the main power; do not produce the intended illumination, display, or interaction functionality; and can be switched into another mode automatically with only a remote user-generated or an internal signal. DOE is now incorporating this definition into section 1.2 of both Appendices A and B as the definition for “external accessory standby mode.” As discussed previously, DOE believes that keeping the language consistent across the two appendices will ensure continuity and minimize unnecessary confusion.

d. Anti-Sweat and Other Electric Resistance Heaters

Some beverage vending machines may come equipped with anti-sweat electric resistance heaters that serve to evaporate any water that condenses on the surface of the door or walls during operation.

In the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the test procedure to clarify that anti-sweat and other electric resistance heaters should be operational during testing under the DOE test procedure. DOE also proposed to clarify that models with a user-selectable setting must be turned on and set to the maximum usage position, and that models featuring an automatic, non-user-adjustable controller that turns on or off based on environmental conditions must be operating in the automatic state. Additionally, DOE proposed to amend the regulatory text to clarify that, if a unit is not shipped with a controller from the point of manufacture, but is intended to be used with a controller, the manufacturer must make representations of the basic model based upon the rated performance of that basic model as tested when equipped with an appropriate controller. 79 FR at 46921.

DOE did not receive any comments in response to the amendments proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR regarding anti-sweat and other electric resistance heaters. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is incorporating the clarifying provisions into section 2.2.3.4 of Appendix A and 2.2.5.4 of Appendix B regarding the treatment of anti-sweat and other electric resistance heaters as proposed in the 2014 BVM test procedure NOPR.

e. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps

Beverage vending machines capture water from the air entering the cabinet during operation by causing the water to condense and then freeze on the evaporator coil of the equipment. During a defrost cycle, this frost is melted, and the meltwater produced must be removed from the unit. In many types of equipment, this meltwater is collected in a pan beneath the unit. Some models of beverage vending machines come equipped with electric resistance heaters that evaporate this water out of the pan and into t

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.