Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools, 69888-69896 [2015-28675]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
69888
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 218
Thursday, November 12, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–STD–
0027]
RIN 1904–AD31
Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves:
Availability of Provisional Analysis
Tools
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability
(NODA).
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the
commercial prerinse spray valve (CPSV)
energy conservation standards
rulemaking on July 9, 2015. 80 FR
39486. In response to comments on the
NOPR, DOE has revised its analyses.
This NODA announces the availability
of those updated analyses and results,
and give interested parties an
opportunity to comment and submit
additional data to support DOE’s CPSV
rulemaking. At this time, DOE is not
proposing any energy conservation
standard for commercial prerinse spray
valves. The NODA analysis is publically
available at: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/
rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100.
SUMMARY:
DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this NODA
submitted no later than November 27,
2015.
DATES:
The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0027. The regulations.gov Web page
contains instructions on how to access
all documents in the docket, including
public comments.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email
at Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
James Raba, 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) 586–8654. Email:
commercial_pre-rinse_spray_valves@
EE.Doe.Gov.
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–7935. Email:
Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. History of Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking for Commercial Prerinse
Spray Valves
II. Current Status
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by
the Department of Energy
A. Engineering Analysis
1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the
NODA
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
C. National Impact Analysis
D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
IV. Results of the Economic Analyses
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers
B. Economic Impacts on the Nation
C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
I. History of Energy Conservation
Standards Rulemaking for Commercial
Prerinse Spray Valves
Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),
Public Law 941–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6309, as codified) established the
Energy Conservation Program for
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles.2 These products include
commercial prerinse spray valves
(CPSVs), the subject of this rulemaking.3
EPCA, as amended, prescribes energy
conservation standards for commercial
prerinse spray valves (42 U.S.C.
6295(dd)), and requires DOE to conduct
rulemakings to determine whether to
amend CPSV standards no later than 6
years after issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
DOE published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) proposing amended
energy conservation standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves on
July 9, 2015 (herein known as ‘‘the
CPSV NOPR’’). 80 FR 39486. DOE
posted the CPSV NOPR, as well as the
complete CPSV NOPR technical support
document (TSD), on its Web site.4 The
NOPR and associated TSD proposed
new CPSV product classes based on
spray force, and presented results for
the engineering analysis, economic
analyses, and proposed standard levels.
DOE held a public meeting on July 28,
2015 to present the CPSV NOPR. At the
public meeting, and during the
comment period, DOE received
comments that addressed issues raised
in the CPSV NOPR.
II. Current Status
In response to comments DOE
received in response to the CPSV NOPR,
DOE has revised the analyses presented
in the CPSV NOPR. This NODA
announces the availability of those
updated analyses and results and invites
interested parties to submit comments
or additional data to support DOE’s
ongoing CPSV rulemaking.
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy
Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114–
11 (Apr. 30, 2015).
3 Because Congress included commercial prerinse
spray valves 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 commercial prerinse spray valves. However,
because commercial prerinse spray valves are
commonly considered to be commercial equipment,
as a matter of administrative convenience and to
minimize confusion among interested parties, DOE
placed the requirements for commercial prerinse
spray valves into subpart O of 10 CFR part 431. [71
FR 71340, 71374 (Dec. 8, 2006)]. Part 431 contains
DOE regulations for commercial and industrial
equipment.
4 The CPSV NOPR notice, CPSV NOPR TSD, and
CPSV NOPR analysis public meeting information
are available at regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027.
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The analysis tools described in this
notice were developed to support a
potential energy conservation standard
for commercial prerinse spray valves. At
this time, DOE intends to move forward
with its traditional regulatory
rulemaking activities to develop an
energy conservation standard for
commercial prerinse spray valves. The
provisional analysis presented in
today’s notice is a step in this process.
The final rule will include a TSD, which
will contain a detailed written account
of the analyses performed in support of
the final rule, which will include
updates to the analyses made available
in this NODA.
In this NODA, DOE is not proposing
any energy conservation standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE
may revise the analysis presented in the
NODA based on any new or updated
information or data it obtains between
now and the publication of the final rule
for commercial prerinse spray valves.
DOE encourages stakeholders to provide
any additional data or information that
may improve the analysis.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Summary of the Analyses
Performed by the Department of Energy
DOE conducted analyses of
commercial prerinse spray valves in the
following areas: (1) Engineering, (2)
manufacturer impacts, (3) life-cycle cost
and payback period, and (4) national
impacts. The tools used in preparing
these analyses (engineering, life-cycle
cost, national impacts, and
manufacturer impacts spreadsheets) and
their respective results are available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0027. Each individual spreadsheet
includes an introduction describing the
various inputs and outputs for the
analysis, as well as operation
instructions. A brief description of each
of these analysis tools is provided
below. The key aspects of the present
analyses and DOE’s updates to the CPSV
NOPR analyses are described in the
following sections.
A. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes
the relationship between the
manufacturer production cost (MPC)
and efficiency levels for each product
class of commercial prerinse spray
valves. This relationship serves as the
basis for cost-benefit calculations
performed in the other three analysis
tools for individual consumers,
manufacturers, and the nation.
In the CPSV NOPR, DOE proposed
three product classes that were
delineated by spray force. DOE analyzed
several efficiency levels of specific flow
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
rates for each product class. DOE
received feedback from interested
parties opposing the three product class
structure and recommending a single
product class. (Chicago Faucets, No. 26
at pp. 1–2; PMI, No. 27 at p. 1; Fisher,
No. 30 at p. 1; ASAP, NEEA, NRDC, No.
32 at p. 1; PG&E, SCE, SCGC, SDG&E,
No. 34 at p. 1–2; AWE, No. 28 at p. 7;
and T&S Brass, No. 33 at p. 2)
DOE is required by EPCA to consider
performance-related features that justify
different standard levels, such as
features affecting customer utility, when
establishing or amending energy
conservation standards. 42 U.S.C.
6295(q)) In response to comments from
interested parties, DOE reviewed the
market for commercial prerinse spray
valves and available data regarding their
typical performance and usage
characteristics in different applications.
DOE market research shows that
commercial prerinse spray valves have
a range of flow rates, spray forces, and
spray shapes. For example,
manufacturers market commercial
prerinse spray valves at lower flow rates
with specific terminology such as
‘‘ultra-low-flow’’ or ‘‘low-flow’’ spray
valves, indicating that there are diverse
products available to satisfy different
consumer needs when selecting
commercial prerinse spray valves.
Conversely, for commercial prerinse
spray valves at higher flow rates, DOE
has predominately observed showertype units. Shower-type units contain
multiple orifices, as opposed to more
traditional, single-orifice CPSV unit. In
the CPSV NOPR public meeting, T&S
Brass stated that consumer satisfaction
is very high at the upper range of the
market flow rate distribution, and that
the showerhead-type commercial
prerinse spray valves in the upper range
of the market flow rate distribution
represent the majority of the market and
highest level of customer satisfaction
because these units prevent splash-back.
(T&S, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23
at pp. 42–43) T&S Brass also
commented that there are several
applications of commercial prerinse
spray valves, and all may require
different spray forces. (T&S Brass,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p.
39) Based on the above information,
DOE believes that the CPSV market
offers a variety of prerinse spray valves
that have different design features and
different end-user applications that
affect consumer utility.
Additionally, DOE found a strong
linear relationship between spray force
and flow rate, indicating that spray force
is an important performance related
feature that affects consumer utility. The
relationship between spray force and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69889
flow rate is presented in the
accompanying engineering spreadsheet.
DOE constructed the flow rate-spray
force relationship using data primarily
from DOE testing, and supplementary
data from DOE’s Compliance
Certification Management System
(CCMS), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) WaterSense®
program, and Food Service Technology
Center (FSTC) reports.5 6 7 Additionally,
DOE’s research shows that spray force
relates to user satisfaction; a WaterSense
field study found that low water
pressure, or spray force, is a source of
user dissatisfaction. WaterSense
evaluated 14 commercial prerinse spray
valve models and collected 56 consumer
satisfaction reviews, of which 9
indicated unsatisfactory performance.
Seven of the nine unsatisfactory reviews
were attributed, among other factors, to
the water pressure, or the userperceived force of the spray.8 Therefore,
DOE concludes that separating
commercial prerinse spray valves into
product classes based on spray force is
justified, because spray force is a
performance-related feature that affects
consumer utility, and spray force is
strongly correlated with flow rate.
To determine the number of product
classes, DOE tested and analyzed a wide
range of CPSV units on the market,
spanning multiple manufacturers, flow
rates, and spray shapes. Based on DOE’s
test data and additional market research,
DOE found that available CPSV models
could be differentiated into three
distinct spray force ranges. DOE
believes that each spray force range
represents a specific CPSV application.
This conclusion is supported by
comments submitted by T&S Brass to
the Framework document, suggesting
three product classes: (1) An ultra lowflow commercial prerinse spray valve
with a maximum flow rate of 0.8 gallons
per minute (gpm), (2) a low-flow
commercial prerinse spray valve with
flow rates of 0.8 to 1.28 gpm, and (3) a
standard commercial prerinse spray
valve with flow rates of 1.28 to 1.6 gpm.
(T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) Therefore, in
this NODA, DOE maintains the three
5 DOE compliance certification data for
commercial prerinse spray valves available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
6 EPA WaterSense program, September 19, 2013.
WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse
Spray Valves Supporting Statement. Version 1.0.
https://www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/prsv_
final.html.
7 Food Service Technology Center test data for
prerinse spray valves available at
www.fishnick.com/equipment/sprayvalves/.
8 EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field
Study Report, at 24±25 (Mar. 31, 2011) (Available
at: www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_
study_report_033111v2_508.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
69890
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
product classes presented in the CPSV
NOPR. However, based on feedback
from interested parties, DOE renames
the product classes as product class 1,
2, and 3 instead of using the
terminology ‘‘light-duty’’, ‘‘standardduty’’, and ‘‘heavy-duty,’’ respectively.
As defined, product class 1 provides
distinct utility for cleaning delicate
glassware and removing loose food
particles from dishware, product class 2
provides distinct utility for cleaning wet
foods, and product class 3 provides
distinct utility for cleaning baked-on
foods and preserving shower-type units,
which prevent splash-back.
For each of the product classes, DOE
determined the spray force ranges based
on the CPSV flow rate-spray force linear
relationship. DOE’s product class 1
includes units less than or equal to 5
ounce-force (ozf), product class 2
includes units greater than 5 ozf but less
than or equal to 8 ozf, and product class
3 includes units greater than 8 ozf. DOE
selected 8.0 ozf as the spray force cutoff between product class 2 and product
class 3 based on test results of
commercial prerinse spray valves with
shower-type spray shapes. DOE testing
showed that the upper range of the
market, in terms of flow rate,
predominantly includes shower-type
units. DOE found that the lowest tested
spray force of any shower-type unit was
8.1 ozf. Therefore, to maintain the
consumer utility provided by showertype units, DOE selected 8.0 ozf to
differentiate product class 3 units from
other commercial prerinse spray valves
available on the market. Additionally,
this spray force threshold is
corroborated by T&S Brass’s comments
to the Framework document suggesting
three product classes. T&S Brass
suggested a flow rate cut-off of 1.28 gpm
between the ‘‘low-flow’’ and ‘‘standard’’
commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S
Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) Converting this
flow rate into spray force using the flow
rate-spray force linear relationship
equates 1.28 gpm to 8.5 ozf. This spray
force can be conservatively rounded to
8.0 ozf.
DOE selected 5.0 ozf as the spray
force cut-off between product class 1
and product class 2 based on DOE’s test
data and market research, which clearly
showed a cluster of CPSV units above
and below that threshold. One cluster of
CPSV units had spray force ranges
between 4.1 and 4.8 ozf, and the other
cluster was between 5.5 and 7.7 ozf.
Therefore, DOE established the
threshold between the two classes at 5.0
ozf. This spray force threshold is
corroborated by T&S Brass’s comment to
the Framework document suggesting a
flow rate cut-off of 0.80 gpm between
the ‘‘ultra-low-flow’’ and ‘‘low-flow’’
commercial prerinse spray valves,
which equates to 5.3 ozf using the flow
rate-spray force linear relationship. This
spray force can be conservatively
rounded to 5.0 ozf.
While DOE acknowledges the
comments from interested parties
regarding DOE’s CPSV product class
structure, DOE maintains that all
available data and information from
manufacturers suggests that: (1) Flow
rate and spray force are strongly
correlated, and (2) CPSV units with
different flow rates or spray forces are
available in the market, and provide
distinct consumer utility in the different
applications those units are designed to
serve. Therefore, in this NODA, DOE
has maintained the product class
structure presented in the NOPR, with
three product classes differentiated by
spray force.
1. Summary of Engineering Updates for
the NODA
In addition to the product class
structure, DOE received comment on,
and updated a number of other
assumptions in its engineering analysis
presented in this NODA. In addition,
DOE conducted additional testing of
CPSV units to gather more data on the
range of CPSV products available in the
market. Specifically, DOE’s revised
updates include the following:
• Based on new test data, DOE
updated the flow rate-spray force
relationship, which is presented in the
accompanying engineering spreadsheet.
• Based on new test data, DOE
updated the approach to define baseline
levels for product class 1 and product
class 2 to be the higher flow rate of
either (1) the tested least-efficient unit
or (2) the theoretical least-efficient unit
at the intersection of the flow rate-spray
force linear relationship and the spray
force bounds. In product class 1, DOE
revised the baseline to 1.00 gpm, which
is a tested unit with a flow rate of 0.97
gpm, rounded-up to a whole number.
This is greater than the theoretical flow
rate at the intersection of the flow ratespray force linear relationship and the
spray force bound of 5.0 ozf, which is
0.75 gpm. In product class 2, DOE
revised the baseline level to 1.20 gpm,
which is the intersection of the flow
rate-spray force linear relationship and
the 8.0 ozf spray force bound. The
baseline for product class 3 is the
current DOE standard of 1.6 gpm.
• Based on new test data, DOE
revised the max-tech levels from 0.65,
0.97, and 1.24 gpm to 0.62, 0.73, and
1.13 gpm for product class 1, product
class 2 and product class 3, respectively.
• Based on the updates to the
baseline and max-tech levels, DOE
updated the EL 1 and EL 2 flow rates in
product class 1 and product class 2 to
reflect a 15 percent and 25 percent
improvement, respectively, over the
baseline efficiency. Table III.1 through
Table III.3 provide the updated
efficiency levels for all product classes.
TABLE III.1—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 1
[Spray force ≤ 5 ozf]
Efficiency level
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Level
Level
Level
Level
0
1
2
3
...................
...................
...................
...................
Flow rate
(gpm)
Description
Baseline ...........................................................................................................................................................
15% improvement over baseline .....................................................................................................................
25% improvement over baseline .....................................................................................................................
Maximum available (‘‘max tech’’) ....................................................................................................................
1.00
0.85
0.75
0.62
TABLE III.2—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 2
[5 ozf < Spray force ≤ 8 ozf]
Flow rate
(gpm)
Efficiency level
Description
Level 0 ...................
Level 1 ...................
Baseline ...........................................................................................................................................................
15% improvement over baseline .....................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
1.20
1.02
69891
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.2—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 2—Continued
[5 ozf < Spray force ≤ 8 ozf]
Flow rate
(gpm)
Efficiency level
Description
Level 2 ...................
Level 3 ...................
25% improvement over baseline .....................................................................................................................
Maximum available (‘‘max tech’’) ....................................................................................................................
0.90
0.73
TABLE III.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 3
[Spray force > 8 ozf]
Efficiency level
Level
Level
Level
Level
0
1
2
3
...................
...................
...................
...................
Baseline ...........................................................................................................................................................
10% improvement over baseline .....................................................................................................................
WaterSense Level; 20% improvement over baseline .....................................................................................
Maximum available (max-tech) .......................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
The life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback
period (PBP) analysis determines the
economic impact of potential standards
on individual consumers. The LCC is
the total cost of purchasing, installing
and operating a commercial prerinse
spray valve over the course of its
lifetime. The LCC analysis compares the
LCC of a commercial prerinse spray
valve designed to meet possible energy
conservation standards with the LCC of
a commercial prerinse spray valve likely
to be installed in the absence of
standards. DOE determines LCCs by
considering (1) total installed cost to the
consumer (which consists of
manufacturer selling price, distribution
chain markups, and sales taxes), (2) the
range of annual energy consumption of
commercial prerinse spray valves that
meet each of the efficiency levels
considered as they are used in the field,
(3) the operating cost of commercial
prerinse spray valves (e.g., energy cost),
(4) CPSV lifetime, and (5) a discount
rate that reflects the real consumer cost
of capital and puts the LCC in presentvalue terms. The PBP represents the
number of years needed to recover the
typically increased purchase price of
higher-efficiency commercial prerinse
spray valves through savings in
operating costs. PBP is calculated by
dividing the incremental increase in
installed cost of the higher efficiency
product, compared to the baseline
product, by the annual savings in
operating costs. In this analysis, because
more efficient products do not cost more
than baseline efficiency products, the
PBP is zero, meaning that consumers do
not have any incremental product costs
to recover via lower operating costs.
For commercial prerinse spray valves,
DOE performed an energy and water use
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Flow rate
(gpm)
Description
17:34 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
analysis that calculated energy and
water use of commercial prerinse spray
valves at each efficiency level within
each product class identified in the
engineering analysis. DOE determined
the range of annual energy consumption
and annual water consumption using
the flow rate of each EL within each
product class from the engineering
analysis, the average annual operating
time, and the energy required to heat a
gallon of water used at the commercial
prerinse spray valve. Recognizing that
several inputs to the determination of
consumer LCC and PBP are either
variable or uncertain (e.g., annual
energy consumption, product lifetime,
electricity price, discount rate), DOE
conducts the LCC and PBP analysis by
modeling both the uncertainty and
variability in the inputs using a Monte
Carlo simulation and probability
distributions.
The primary outputs of the LCC and
PBP analysis are (1) average LCCs, (2)
median PBPs, and (3) the percentage of
consumers that experience a net cost for
each product class and efficiency level.
The average annual energy consumption
derived in the LCC analysis is used as
an input to the National Impact
Analysis (NIA).
C. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy
savings (NES), national water savings
(NWS), and the net present value (NPV)
of total consumer costs and savings
expected to result from potential new
standards at each trial standard level
(TSL). DOE defined four TSLs in the
CPSV NOPR, and in this NODA
provides three additional TSLs. The
new TSLs analyzed in this NODA are
shown in Table III.4. DOE defined these
three TSLs based on flow rates for each
product class that would not induce
consumers to switch product classes (as
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1.60
1.44
1.28
1.13
discussed in the CPSV NOPR) as a result
of a standard at those TSLs. That is,
DOE selected flow rates that would
allow consumers to maintain provided
utility without purchasing units from a
different product class.
TABLE III.4—EFFICIENCY LEVELS BY
PRODUCT CLASS AND TSL
Product
class 1
TSL
A ...........
B ...........
C ...........
0
0
0
Product
class 2
0
0
0
Product
class 3
1
2
3
DOE calculated NES, NWS, and NPV
for each TSL as the difference between
a no-new-standards case scenario
(without new standards) and the
standards-case scenario (with
standards). Cumulative energy savings
are the sum of the annual NES
determined over the lifetime of
commercial prerinse spray valves
shipped during the analysis period.
Energy savings reported include the
full-fuel cycle energy savings (i.e.,
inclusive of the energy needed to
extract, process, and deliver primary
fuel sources such as coal and natural
gas, and the conversion and distribution
losses of generating electricity from
those fuel sources). Similarly,
cumulative water savings are the sum of
the annual NWS determined over the
lifetime of commercial prerinse spray
valves shipped during the analysis
period. The NPV is the sum over time
of the discounted net savings each year,
which consists of the difference
between total operating cost savings and
any changes in total installed costs. NPV
results are reported for discount rates of
3 percent and 7 percent.
To calculate the NES, NWS, and NPV,
DOE projected future shipments and
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
69892
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
efficiency distributions (for each TSL)
for each CPSV product class. After
further research and consideration of
public comments regarding product
shipments (T&S, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 81), DOE
updated its shipments projections from
the NOPR to more accurately
characterize the CPSV market. The most
significant update was allocating more
of the overall market share to product
class 3 products relative to product
classes 1 and 2. Other inputs to the NIA
include the estimated CPSV lifetime,
final installed costs, and average annual
energy and water consumption per unit
from the LCC. For detailed NIA results
for the newly-added TSLs, see Table
IV.4 and Table IV.5.
The purpose of this NODA is to notify
industry, manufacturers, consumer
groups, efficiency advocates,
government agencies, and other
stakeholders on issues related to the
provisional analysis of potential energy
conservation standards for commercial
prerinse spray valves. Stakeholders
should contact DOE for any additional
information pertaining to the analyses
performed for this NODA.
D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
For the manufacturer impact analysis
(MIA), DOE used the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) to
assess the economic impact of potential
standards on CPSV manufacturers. DOE
developed key industry average
financial parameters for the GRIM using
publicly available data from corporate
annual reports. Additionally, DOE used
this and other publicly available
information to estimate and account for
the aggregate industry investment in
capital expenditures and research and
development required to produce
compliant products at each efficiency
level.
The GRIM uses this information in
conjunction with inputs from other
analyses including manufacturer
production costs from the engineering
analysis; shipments from the shipments
analysis; and price trends from the
national impact analysis (NIA) to model
industry annual cash flows from the
base year through the end of the
analysis period. The primary
quantitative output of this model is the
industry net present value (INPV),
which DOE calculates as the sum of
industry cash flows discounted to the
present day using industry specific
weighted average costs of capital.
Standards affect INPV by requiring
manufacturers to make investments in
manufacturing capital and product
development. Under potential
standards, DOE expects that
manufacturers may lose a portion of
their INPV, which is calculated as the
difference between INPV in the no-newstandards case (absent new energy
conservation standards) and in the
standards case (with new energy
conservation standards in effect). DOE
examines a range of possible impacts on
industry by modeling scenarios with
various levels of investment.
IV. Results of the Economic Analyses
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers
Table IV.1 through Table IV.3 provide
LCC and PBP results for the newly
added TSLs discussed in section III.C.
TABLE IV.1—PRODUCT CLASS 1 LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Product Class 1
(spray force ≤ 5 ozf)
Average costs
(2014$)
TSL
Simple
payback
period
(years)
Efficiency level
Installed cost
A,B,C ........................................................
0
1
2
3
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
487
414
366
302
2,229
1,895
1,672
1,382
76
76
76
76
LCC *
2,305
1,971
1,748
1,458
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Product Class 1
(spray force ≤ 5 ozf)
Life-cycle cost savings **
TSL
Efficiency level
A,B,C ......................................................................................................................................
% of customers
that experience
net cost
0
1
2
3
Average
savings
(2014$)
0
0
0
0
0
334
557
352
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE IV.2—PRODUCT CLASS 2 LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Product Class 2
(spray force > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf)
Average costs
(2014$)
TSL
Efficiency level
Installed cost
A,B,C ........................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
0
1
2
PO 00000
Frm 00005
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
585
497
439
2,675
2,274
2,006
76
76
76
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
LCC *
2,751
2,350
2,082
Simple
payback
period
(years)
0.0
0.0
0.0
69893
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.2—PRODUCT CLASS 2 LCC AND PBP RESULTS—Continued
Product Class 2
(spray force > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf)
Average costs
(2014$)
TSL
Simple
payback
period
(years)
Efficiency level
Installed cost
3
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
356
1,627
76
LCC *
1,704
0.0
Product Class 2
(spray force > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf)
Life-cycle cost savings **
TSL
Efficiency level
A,B,C ......................................................................................................................................
% of customers
that experience
net cost
0
1
2
3
Average
savings
(2014$)
0
0
0
0
0
401
446
825
TABLE IV.3—PRODUCT CLASS 3 LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Product Class 3
(spray force > 8 ozf)
Average costs
(2014$)
TSL
Simple
payback
period
(years)
Efficiency level
Installed cost
0
1
2
3
A ...............................................................
B ...............................................................
C ...............................................................
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
780
702
624
551
3,566
3,210
2,853
2,519
76
76
76
76
LCC *
3,643
3,286
2,929
2,595
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Product Class 3
(spray force > 8 ozf)
Life-cycle cost savings **
TSL
Efficiency level
0
1
2
3
A .............................................................................................................................................
B .............................................................................................................................................
C ............................................................................................................................................
B. Economic Impacts on the Nation
Table IV.4 provides energy and water
impacts associated with the newly-
% of customers
that experience
net cost
Average
savings
(2014$)
0
0
0
0
0
357
547
766
added TSLs. Table IV.5, also for these
selected TSLs, provides NPV results.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE IV.4—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048
TSL
National energy savings
(quads) *
Product class
Primary
Full-fuel cycle
National water
savings
(billion gallons)
A ..........................................
1 (≤5 ozf) ..........................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) .......................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ..........................................................................
0.000
0.000
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.035
0.000
0.000
41.590
Total TSL 1 ..................
......................................................................................
0.032
0.035
41.590
B ..........................................
1 (≤5 ozf) ..........................................................................
0.000
0.000
0.000
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
69894
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.4—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048—Continued
TSL
National energy savings
(quads) *
Product class
Primary
Full-fuel cycle
National water
savings
(billion gallons)
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) .......................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ..........................................................................
0.000
0.093
0.000
0.101
0.000
119.572
Total TSL 4 ..................
......................................................................................
0.093
0.101
119.572
C ..........................................
1 (≤5 ozf) ..........................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) .......................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ..........................................................................
0.000
0.000
0.166
0.000
0.000
0.180
0.000
0.000
212.175
Total TSL 5 ..................
......................................................................................
0.166
0.180
212.175
* ‘‘quad’’ = one quadrillion British thermal units.
TABLE IV.5—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048
Net present value
(billion $2014)
TSL
Product class
7-Percent
discount rate
3-Percent
discount rate
A .....................................................
1 (≤5 ozf) ................................................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ..............................................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ................................................................................................
0.000
0.000
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.513
Total TSL 1 ..............................
............................................................................................................
0.250
0.513
B .....................................................
1 (≤5 ozf) ................................................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ..............................................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ................................................................................................
0.000
0.000
0.718
0.000
0.000
1.476
Total TSL 4 ..............................
............................................................................................................
0.718
1.476
C .....................................................
1 (≤5 ozf) ................................................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ..............................................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ................................................................................................
0.000
0.000
1.274
0.000
0.000
2.619
Total TSL 4 ..............................
............................................................................................................
1.274
2.619
C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
Table IV.6 provides manufacturer
impacts associated with the newly
added TSLs under the sourced materials
conversion cost scenario. Table IV.7,
also for these selected TSLs, provides
manufacturer impacts under the
fabricated materials conversion cost
scenario.
TABLE IV.6—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES UNDER THE SOURCED
MATERIALS CONVERSION COST SCENARIO
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
INPV .....................................................................................
Change in INPV $ ................................................................
Change in INPV % ...............................................................
Product Conversion Costs ...................................................
Capital Conversion Costs .....................................................
Total Investment Required ...................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
2014$ MM .............................
2014$ MM .............................
% ...........................................
2014$ MM .............................
2014$ MM .............................
2014$ MM .............................
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Trial standard level
No-standards
case
Units
A
8.6
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
8.4
(0.2)
(2.5)
0.4
................
0.4
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
B
8.1
(0.5)
(5.5)
0.8
0.1
0.9
C
8.1
(0.5)
(6.0)
0.8
0.1
0.9
69895
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.7—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES UNDER THE FABRICATED
MATERIALS CONVERSION COST SCENARIO
No-standards
case
Units
INPV .....................................................................................
Change in INPV $ ................................................................
Change in INPV % ...............................................................
Product Conversion Costs ...................................................
Capital Conversion Costs .....................................................
Total Investment Required ...................................................
2014$ MM .............................
2014$ MM .............................
% ...........................................
2014$ MM .............................
2014$ MM .............................
2014$ MM .............................
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
Web site will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
A. Submission of Comments
information on submitting CBI, see the
DOE will accept comments, data, and Confidential Business Information
section below.
information regarding this notice no
DOE processes submissions made
later than the date provided in the DATES
through www.regulations.gov before
section at the beginning of this notice.
posting. Normally, comments will be
Interested parties may submit
posted within a few days of being
comments, data, and other information
submitted. However, if large volumes of
using any of the methods described in
comments are being processed
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
simultaneously, your comment may not
of this notice.
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Submitting comments via
Please keep the comment tracking
www.regulations.gov. The
number that www.regulations.gov
www.regulations.gov Web page will
provides after you have successfully
require you to provide your name and
uploaded your comment.
contact information. Your contact
Submitting comments via email, hand
information will only be viewable to
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and
DOE Building Technologies staff. Your
contact information will not be publicly documents submitted via email, hand
delivery, or mail will also be posted to
viewable except for your first and last
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
names, organization name (if any), and
your personal contact information to be
submitter representative name (if any).
publicly viewable, do not include it in
If your comment is not processed
your comment or any accompanying
properly because of technical
documents. Instead, provide your
difficulties, DOE will use this
contact information in a cover letter.
information to contact you. If DOE
Include your first and last names, email
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
you for clarification, DOE may not be
letter will not be publicly viewable as
able to consider your comment.
long as it does not include any
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include comments.
Include contact information each time
it in the comment itself or in any
you submit comments, data, documents,
documents attached to your comment.
and other information to DOE. If you
Any information that you do not want
submit via mail or hand delivery/
to be publicly viewable should not be
courier, please provide all items on a
included in your comment, nor in any
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
document attached to your comment.
necessary to submit printed copies. No
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
will see only first and last names,
Comments, data, and other
organization names, correspondence
information submitted to DOE
containing comments, and any
electronically should be provided in
documents submitted with the
portable document format (PDF)
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel,
WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format.
information for which disclosure is
V. Public Participation
DOE is interested in receiving
comments on all aspects of the data and
analysis presented in the NODA and
supporting documentation that can be
found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
product.aspx/productid/54.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8.6
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Trial standard level
A
8.0
(0.6)
(6.5)
0.4
0.4
0.8
B
C
7.6
(0.9)
(11.1)
0.8
0.6
1.4
7.5
(1.1)
(12.6)
0.8
0.8
1.6
Provide documents that are not secured,
that are written in English, and that are
free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50
and 500 form letters per PDF or as one
form letter with a list of supporters’
names compiled into one or more PDFs.
This reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit two well-marked copies: One
copy of the document marked
‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include (1) a
description of the items, (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality, (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure, (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time, and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
69896
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 5,
2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015–28675 Filed 11–10–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2015–4811; Directorate
Identifier 2015–NM–104–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier,
Inc. Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702)
airplanes, Model CL–600–2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes,
Model CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL–
600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by the discovery of a number
of incorrectly calibrated angle of attack
(AOA) transducers installed in the stall
protection system. This proposed AD
would require replacement of affected
AOA transducers. We are proposing this
AD to detect and replace incorrectly
calibrated AOA transducers; incorrect
calibration of the transducers could
result in late activation of the stick
pusher.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by December 28,
2015.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Nov 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Bombardier,
ˆ
Inc., 400 Cote-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
´
Quebec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone
514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet
https://www.bombardier.com. You may
view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 425–227–1221.
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Examining the AD Docket
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
It was discovered that a number of [angle
of attack] AOA transducers installed on
Bombardier CL–600–2C10, CL–600–2D15,
CL–600–2D24, and CL–600–2E25 aeroplanes
were incorrectly calibrated due to a quality
control problem at both the production and
repair facilities. Incorrect calibration of the
AOA transducer could result in a late
activation of the stick pusher.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the
replacement of the incorrectly calibrated
AOA transducer.
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–
4811; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems
Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7318; fax
516–794–5531.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2015–4811; Directorate Identifier
2015–NM–104–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD based on those comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Discussion
Transport Canada Civil Aviation
(TCCA), which is the aviation authority
for Canada, has issued Canadian
Airworthiness Directive CF–2015–18,
effective July 16, 2015 (referred to after
this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the
MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–
600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701,
& 702) airplanes, Model CL–600–2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes,
Model CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL–
600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. The MCAI states:
You may examine the MCAI in the
AD docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–
4811.
Related Service Information Under 1
CFR Part 51
Bombardier, Inc. has issued
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–27–
069, dated March 30, 2015. The service
information describes procedures for
replacement of the transducers with
correctly calibrated AOA transducers.
This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties
have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section of
this NPRM.
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of This Proposed AD
This product has been approved by
the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation
in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with the State of
Design Authority, we have been notified
of the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this
AD because we evaluated all pertinent
information and determined an unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of these same
type designs.
E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM
12NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69888-69896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28675]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 69888]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027]
RIN 1904-AD31
Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray
Valves: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the commercial prerinse spray valve
(CPSV) energy conservation standards rulemaking on July 9, 2015. 80 FR
39486. In response to comments on the NOPR, DOE has revised its
analyses. This NODA announces the availability of those updated
analyses and results, and give interested parties an opportunity to
comment and submit additional data to support DOE's CPSV rulemaking. At
this time, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation standard for
commercial prerinse spray valves. The NODA analysis is publically
available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NODA submitted no later than November 27, 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 www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.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: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027. The
regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all
documents in the docket, including public comments.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email at
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Raba, 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) 586-8654. Email: commercial_pre-rinse_spray_valves@EE.Doe.Gov.
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7935. Email: Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. History of Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves
II. Current Status
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by the Department of Energy
A. Engineering Analysis
1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the NODA
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
C. National Impact Analysis
D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
IV. Results of the Economic Analyses
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers
B. Economic Impacts on the Nation
C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
I. History of Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for Commercial
Prerinse Spray Valves
Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA), Public Law 941-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified)
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles.\2\ These products include commercial prerinse spray
valves (CPSVs), the subject of this rulemaking.\3\ EPCA, as amended,
prescribes energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray
valves (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)), and requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to
determine whether to amend CPSV standards no later than 6 years after
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015,
Pub. L. 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).
\3\ Because Congress included commercial prerinse spray valves
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 commercial prerinse spray valves. However, because commercial
prerinse spray valves are commonly considered to be commercial
equipment, as a matter of administrative convenience and to minimize
confusion among interested parties, DOE placed the requirements for
commercial prerinse spray valves into subpart O of 10 CFR part 431.
[71 FR 71340, 71374 (Dec. 8, 2006)]. Part 431 contains DOE
regulations for commercial and industrial equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing
amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray
valves on July 9, 2015 (herein known as ``the CPSV NOPR''). 80 FR
39486. DOE posted the CPSV NOPR, as well as the complete CPSV NOPR
technical support document (TSD), on its Web site.\4\ The NOPR and
associated TSD proposed new CPSV product classes based on spray force,
and presented results for the engineering analysis, economic analyses,
and proposed standard levels. DOE held a public meeting on July 28,
2015 to present the CPSV NOPR. At the public meeting, and during the
comment period, DOE received comments that addressed issues raised in
the CPSV NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The CPSV NOPR notice, CPSV NOPR TSD, and CPSV NOPR analysis
public meeting information are available at regulations.gov under
docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Current Status
In response to comments DOE received in response to the CPSV NOPR,
DOE has revised the analyses presented in the CPSV NOPR. This NODA
announces the availability of those updated analyses and results and
invites interested parties to submit comments or additional data to
support DOE's ongoing CPSV rulemaking.
[[Page 69889]]
The analysis tools described in this notice were developed to
support a potential energy conservation standard for commercial
prerinse spray valves. At this time, DOE intends to move forward with
its traditional regulatory rulemaking activities to develop an energy
conservation standard for commercial prerinse spray valves. The
provisional analysis presented in today's notice is a step in this
process. The final rule will include a TSD, which will contain a
detailed written account of the analyses performed in support of the
final rule, which will include updates to the analyses made available
in this NODA.
In this NODA, DOE is not proposing any energy conservation
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE may revise the
analysis presented in the NODA based on any new or updated information
or data it obtains between now and the publication of the final rule
for commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE encourages stakeholders to
provide any additional data or information that may improve the
analysis.
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by the Department of Energy
DOE conducted analyses of commercial prerinse spray valves in the
following areas: (1) Engineering, (2) manufacturer impacts, (3) life-
cycle cost and payback period, and (4) national impacts. The tools used
in preparing these analyses (engineering, life-cycle cost, national
impacts, and manufacturer impacts spreadsheets) and their respective
results are available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027. Each individual spreadsheet
includes an introduction describing the various inputs and outputs for
the analysis, as well as operation instructions. A brief description of
each of these analysis tools is provided below. The key aspects of the
present analyses and DOE's updates to the CPSV NOPR analyses are
described in the following sections.
A. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the
manufacturer production cost (MPC) and efficiency levels for each
product class of commercial prerinse spray valves. This relationship
serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations performed in the
other three analysis tools for individual consumers, manufacturers, and
the nation.
In the CPSV NOPR, DOE proposed three product classes that were
delineated by spray force. DOE analyzed several efficiency levels of
specific flow rates for each product class. DOE received feedback from
interested parties opposing the three product class structure and
recommending a single product class. (Chicago Faucets, No. 26 at pp. 1-
2; PMI, No. 27 at p. 1; Fisher, No. 30 at p. 1; ASAP, NEEA, NRDC, No.
32 at p. 1; PG&E, SCE, SCGC, SDG&E, No. 34 at p. 1-2; AWE, No. 28 at p.
7; and T&S Brass, No. 33 at p. 2)
DOE is required by EPCA to consider performance-related features
that justify different standard levels, such as features affecting
customer utility, when establishing or amending energy conservation
standards. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In response to comments from interested
parties, DOE reviewed the market for commercial prerinse spray valves
and available data regarding their typical performance and usage
characteristics in different applications.
DOE market research shows that commercial prerinse spray valves
have a range of flow rates, spray forces, and spray shapes. For
example, manufacturers market commercial prerinse spray valves at lower
flow rates with specific terminology such as ``ultra-low-flow'' or
``low-flow'' spray valves, indicating that there are diverse products
available to satisfy different consumer needs when selecting commercial
prerinse spray valves. Conversely, for commercial prerinse spray valves
at higher flow rates, DOE has predominately observed shower-type units.
Shower-type units contain multiple orifices, as opposed to more
traditional, single-orifice CPSV unit. In the CPSV NOPR public meeting,
T&S Brass stated that consumer satisfaction is very high at the upper
range of the market flow rate distribution, and that the showerhead-
type commercial prerinse spray valves in the upper range of the market
flow rate distribution represent the majority of the market and highest
level of customer satisfaction because these units prevent splash-back.
(T&S, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 42-43) T&S Brass also
commented that there are several applications of commercial prerinse
spray valves, and all may require different spray forces. (T&S Brass,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p. 39) Based on the above
information, DOE believes that the CPSV market offers a variety of
prerinse spray valves that have different design features and different
end-user applications that affect consumer utility.
Additionally, DOE found a strong linear relationship between spray
force and flow rate, indicating that spray force is an important
performance related feature that affects consumer utility. The
relationship between spray force and flow rate is presented in the
accompanying engineering spreadsheet. DOE constructed the flow rate-
spray force relationship using data primarily from DOE testing, and
supplementary data from DOE's Compliance Certification Management
System (CCMS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
WaterSense[supreg] program, and Food Service Technology Center (FSTC)
reports.5 6 7 Additionally, DOE's research shows that spray
force relates to user satisfaction; a WaterSense field study found that
low water pressure, or spray force, is a source of user
dissatisfaction. WaterSense evaluated 14 commercial prerinse spray
valve models and collected 56 consumer satisfaction reviews, of which 9
indicated unsatisfactory performance. Seven of the nine unsatisfactory
reviews were attributed, among other factors, to the water pressure, or
the user-perceived force of the spray.\8\ Therefore, DOE concludes that
separating commercial prerinse spray valves into product classes based
on spray force is justified, because spray force is a performance-
related feature that affects consumer utility, and spray force is
strongly correlated with flow rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE compliance certification data for commercial prerinse
spray valves available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
\6\ EPA WaterSense program, September 19, 2013. WaterSense
Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Supporting
Statement. Version 1.0. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/prsv_final.html.
\7\ Food Service Technology Center test data for prerinse spray
valves available at www.fishnick.com/equipment/sprayvalves/.
\8\ EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field Study Report, at
24-25 (Mar. 31, 2011) (Available at: www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_study_report_033111v2_508.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the number of product classes, DOE tested and analyzed
a wide range of CPSV units on the market, spanning multiple
manufacturers, flow rates, and spray shapes. Based on DOE's test data
and additional market research, DOE found that available CPSV models
could be differentiated into three distinct spray force ranges. DOE
believes that each spray force range represents a specific CPSV
application. This conclusion is supported by comments submitted by T&S
Brass to the Framework document, suggesting three product classes: (1)
An ultra low-flow commercial prerinse spray valve with a maximum flow
rate of 0.8 gallons per minute (gpm), (2) a low-flow commercial
prerinse spray valve with flow rates of 0.8 to 1.28 gpm, and (3) a
standard commercial prerinse spray valve with flow rates of 1.28 to 1.6
gpm. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) Therefore, in this NODA, DOE maintains
the three
[[Page 69890]]
product classes presented in the CPSV NOPR. However, based on feedback
from interested parties, DOE renames the product classes as product
class 1, 2, and 3 instead of using the terminology ``light-duty'',
``standard-duty'', and ``heavy-duty,'' respectively. As defined,
product class 1 provides distinct utility for cleaning delicate
glassware and removing loose food particles from dishware, product
class 2 provides distinct utility for cleaning wet foods, and product
class 3 provides distinct utility for cleaning baked-on foods and
preserving shower-type units, which prevent splash-back.
For each of the product classes, DOE determined the spray force
ranges based on the CPSV flow rate-spray force linear relationship.
DOE's product class 1 includes units less than or equal to 5 ounce-
force (ozf), product class 2 includes units greater than 5 ozf but less
than or equal to 8 ozf, and product class 3 includes units greater than
8 ozf. DOE selected 8.0 ozf as the spray force cut-off between product
class 2 and product class 3 based on test results of commercial
prerinse spray valves with shower-type spray shapes. DOE testing showed
that the upper range of the market, in terms of flow rate,
predominantly includes shower-type units. DOE found that the lowest
tested spray force of any shower-type unit was 8.1 ozf. Therefore, to
maintain the consumer utility provided by shower-type units, DOE
selected 8.0 ozf to differentiate product class 3 units from other
commercial prerinse spray valves available on the market. Additionally,
this spray force threshold is corroborated by T&S Brass's comments to
the Framework document suggesting three product classes. T&S Brass
suggested a flow rate cut-off of 1.28 gpm between the ``low-flow'' and
``standard'' commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p.
3) Converting this flow rate into spray force using the flow rate-spray
force linear relationship equates 1.28 gpm to 8.5 ozf. This spray force
can be conservatively rounded to 8.0 ozf.
DOE selected 5.0 ozf as the spray force cut-off between product
class 1 and product class 2 based on DOE's test data and market
research, which clearly showed a cluster of CPSV units above and below
that threshold. One cluster of CPSV units had spray force ranges
between 4.1 and 4.8 ozf, and the other cluster was between 5.5 and 7.7
ozf. Therefore, DOE established the threshold between the two classes
at 5.0 ozf. This spray force threshold is corroborated by T&S Brass's
comment to the Framework document suggesting a flow rate cut-off of
0.80 gpm between the ``ultra-low-flow'' and ``low-flow'' commercial
prerinse spray valves, which equates to 5.3 ozf using the flow rate-
spray force linear relationship. This spray force can be conservatively
rounded to 5.0 ozf.
While DOE acknowledges the comments from interested parties
regarding DOE's CPSV product class structure, DOE maintains that all
available data and information from manufacturers suggests that: (1)
Flow rate and spray force are strongly correlated, and (2) CPSV units
with different flow rates or spray forces are available in the market,
and provide distinct consumer utility in the different applications
those units are designed to serve. Therefore, in this NODA, DOE has
maintained the product class structure presented in the NOPR, with
three product classes differentiated by spray force.
1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the NODA
In addition to the product class structure, DOE received comment
on, and updated a number of other assumptions in its engineering
analysis presented in this NODA. In addition, DOE conducted additional
testing of CPSV units to gather more data on the range of CPSV products
available in the market. Specifically, DOE's revised updates include
the following:
Based on new test data, DOE updated the flow rate-spray
force relationship, which is presented in the accompanying engineering
spreadsheet.
Based on new test data, DOE updated the approach to define
baseline levels for product class 1 and product class 2 to be the
higher flow rate of either (1) the tested least-efficient unit or (2)
the theoretical least-efficient unit at the intersection of the flow
rate-spray force linear relationship and the spray force bounds. In
product class 1, DOE revised the baseline to 1.00 gpm, which is a
tested unit with a flow rate of 0.97 gpm, rounded-up to a whole number.
This is greater than the theoretical flow rate at the intersection of
the flow rate-spray force linear relationship and the spray force bound
of 5.0 ozf, which is 0.75 gpm. In product class 2, DOE revised the
baseline level to 1.20 gpm, which is the intersection of the flow rate-
spray force linear relationship and the 8.0 ozf spray force bound. The
baseline for product class 3 is the current DOE standard of 1.6 gpm.
Based on new test data, DOE revised the max-tech levels
from 0.65, 0.97, and 1.24 gpm to 0.62, 0.73, and 1.13 gpm for product
class 1, product class 2 and product class 3, respectively.
Based on the updates to the baseline and max-tech levels,
DOE updated the EL 1 and EL 2 flow rates in product class 1 and product
class 2 to reflect a 15 percent and 25 percent improvement,
respectively, over the baseline efficiency. Table III.1 through Table
III.3 provide the updated efficiency levels for all product classes.
Table III.1--Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 1
[Spray force <= 5 ozf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate
Efficiency level Description (gpm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 0...................... Baseline................. 1.00
Level 1...................... 15% improvement over 0.85
baseline.
Level 2...................... 25% improvement over 0.75
baseline.
Level 3...................... Maximum available (``max 0.62
tech'').
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.2--Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 2
[5 ozf < Spray force <= 8 ozf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate
Efficiency level Description (gpm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 0...................... Baseline................. 1.20
Level 1...................... 15% improvement over 1.02
baseline.
[[Page 69891]]
Level 2...................... 25% improvement over 0.90
baseline.
Level 3...................... Maximum available (``max 0.73
tech'').
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.3--Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 3
[Spray force > 8 ozf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate
Efficiency level Description (gpm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 0...................... Baseline................. 1.60
Level 1...................... 10% improvement over 1.44
baseline.
Level 2...................... WaterSense Level; 20% 1.28
improvement over
baseline.
Level 3...................... Maximum available (max- 1.13
tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
The life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis
determines the economic impact of potential standards on individual
consumers. The LCC is the total cost of purchasing, installing and
operating a commercial prerinse spray valve over the course of its
lifetime. The LCC analysis compares the LCC of a commercial prerinse
spray valve designed to meet possible energy conservation standards
with the LCC of a commercial prerinse spray valve likely to be
installed in the absence of standards. DOE determines LCCs by
considering (1) total installed cost to the consumer (which consists of
manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, and sales
taxes), (2) the range of annual energy consumption of commercial
prerinse spray valves that meet each of the efficiency levels
considered as they are used in the field, (3) the operating cost of
commercial prerinse spray valves (e.g., energy cost), (4) CPSV
lifetime, and (5) a discount rate that reflects the real consumer cost
of capital and puts the LCC in present-value terms. The PBP represents
the number of years needed to recover the typically increased purchase
price of higher-efficiency commercial prerinse spray valves through
savings in operating costs. PBP is calculated by dividing the
incremental increase in installed cost of the higher efficiency
product, compared to the baseline product, by the annual savings in
operating costs. In this analysis, because more efficient products do
not cost more than baseline efficiency products, the PBP is zero,
meaning that consumers do not have any incremental product costs to
recover via lower operating costs.
For commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE performed an energy and
water use analysis that calculated energy and water use of commercial
prerinse spray valves at each efficiency level within each product
class identified in the engineering analysis. DOE determined the range
of annual energy consumption and annual water consumption using the
flow rate of each EL within each product class from the engineering
analysis, the average annual operating time, and the energy required to
heat a gallon of water used at the commercial prerinse spray valve.
Recognizing that several inputs to the determination of consumer LCC
and PBP are either variable or uncertain (e.g., annual energy
consumption, product lifetime, electricity price, discount rate), DOE
conducts the LCC and PBP analysis by modeling both the uncertainty and
variability in the inputs using a Monte Carlo simulation and
probability distributions.
The primary outputs of the LCC and PBP analysis are (1) average
LCCs, (2) median PBPs, and (3) the percentage of consumers that
experience a net cost for each product class and efficiency level. The
average annual energy consumption derived in the LCC analysis is used
as an input to the National Impact Analysis (NIA).
C. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy savings (NES), national water
savings (NWS), and the net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs
and savings expected to result from potential new standards at each
trial standard level (TSL). DOE defined four TSLs in the CPSV NOPR, and
in this NODA provides three additional TSLs. The new TSLs analyzed in
this NODA are shown in Table III.4. DOE defined these three TSLs based
on flow rates for each product class that would not induce consumers to
switch product classes (as discussed in the CPSV NOPR) as a result of a
standard at those TSLs. That is, DOE selected flow rates that would
allow consumers to maintain provided utility without purchasing units
from a different product class.
Table III.4--Efficiency Levels by Product Class and TSL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Product Product
TSL class 1 class 2 class 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................................... 0 0 1
B...................................... 0 0 2
C...................................... 0 0 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE calculated NES, NWS, and NPV for each TSL as the difference
between a no-new-standards case scenario (without new standards) and
the standards-case scenario (with standards). Cumulative energy savings
are the sum of the annual NES determined over the lifetime of
commercial prerinse spray valves shipped during the analysis period.
Energy savings reported include the full-fuel cycle energy savings
(i.e., inclusive of the energy needed to extract, process, and deliver
primary fuel sources such as coal and natural gas, and the conversion
and distribution losses of generating electricity from those fuel
sources). Similarly, cumulative water savings are the sum of the annual
NWS determined over the lifetime of commercial prerinse spray valves
shipped during the analysis period. The NPV is the sum over time of the
discounted net savings each year, which consists of the difference
between total operating cost savings and any changes in total installed
costs. NPV results are reported for discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent.
To calculate the NES, NWS, and NPV, DOE projected future shipments
and
[[Page 69892]]
efficiency distributions (for each TSL) for each CPSV product class.
After further research and consideration of public comments regarding
product shipments (T&S, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 81),
DOE updated its shipments projections from the NOPR to more accurately
characterize the CPSV market. The most significant update was
allocating more of the overall market share to product class 3 products
relative to product classes 1 and 2. Other inputs to the NIA include
the estimated CPSV lifetime, final installed costs, and average annual
energy and water consumption per unit from the LCC. For detailed NIA
results for the newly-added TSLs, see Table IV.4 and Table IV.5.
The purpose of this NODA is to notify industry, manufacturers,
consumer groups, efficiency advocates, government agencies, and other
stakeholders on issues related to the provisional analysis of potential
energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves.
Stakeholders should contact DOE for any additional information
pertaining to the analyses performed for this NODA.
D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
For the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), DOE used the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) to assess the economic impact of
potential standards on CPSV manufacturers. DOE developed key industry
average financial parameters for the GRIM using publicly available data
from corporate annual reports. Additionally, DOE used this and other
publicly available information to estimate and account for the
aggregate industry investment in capital expenditures and research and
development required to produce compliant products at each efficiency
level.
The GRIM uses this information in conjunction with inputs from
other analyses including manufacturer production costs from the
engineering analysis; shipments from the shipments analysis; and price
trends from the national impact analysis (NIA) to model industry annual
cash flows from the base year through the end of the analysis period.
The primary quantitative output of this model is the industry net
present value (INPV), which DOE calculates as the sum of industry cash
flows discounted to the present day using industry specific weighted
average costs of capital.
Standards affect INPV by requiring manufacturers to make
investments in manufacturing capital and product development. Under
potential standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose a portion
of their INPV, which is calculated as the difference between INPV in
the no-new-standards case (absent new energy conservation standards)
and in the standards case (with new energy conservation standards in
effect). DOE examines a range of possible impacts on industry by
modeling scenarios with various levels of investment.
IV. Results of the Economic Analyses
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers
Table IV.1 through Table IV.3 provide LCC and PBP results for the
newly added TSLs discussed in section III.C.
Table IV.1--Product Class 1 LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 1 (spray force <= 5 ozf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2014$) Simple
Efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------- payback
TSL level First year's Lifetime period
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC * (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A,B,C................................................... 0 76 487 2,229 2,305 0.0
1 76 414 1,895 1,971 0.0
2 76 366 1,672 1,748 0.0
3 76 302 1,382 1,458 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 1 (spray force <= 5 ozf)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings **
----------------------------------
TSL Efficiency % of customers Average
level that experience savings
net cost (2014$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A,B,C........................................................ 0 0 0
1 0 334
2 0 557
3 0 352
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.2--Product Class 2 LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 2 (spray force > 5 ozf and <= 8 ozf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2014$) Simple
Efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------- payback
TSL level First year's Lifetime period
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC * (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A,B,C................................................... 0 76 585 2,675 2,751 0.0
1 76 497 2,274 2,350 0.0
2 76 439 2,006 2,082 0.0
[[Page 69893]]
3 76 356 1,627 1,704 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 2 (spray force > 5 ozf and <= 8 ozf)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings **
----------------------------------
TSL Efficiency % of customers Average
level that experience savings
net cost (2014$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A,B,C........................................................ 0 0 0
1 0 401
2 0 446
3 0 825
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.3--Product Class 3 LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 3 (spray force > 8 ozf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2014$) Simple
Efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------- payback
TSL level First year's Lifetime period
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC * (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 76 780 3,566 3,643 0.0
A....................................................... 1 76 702 3,210 3,286 0.0
B....................................................... 2 76 624 2,853 2,929 0.0
C....................................................... 3 76 551 2,519 2,595 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class 3 (spray force > 8 ozf)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings **
----------------------------------
TSL Efficiency % of customers Average
level that experience savings
net cost (2014$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 0 0
A............................................................ 1 0 357
B............................................................ 2 0 547
C............................................................ 3 0 766
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Economic Impacts on the Nation
Table IV.4 provides energy and water impacts associated with the
newly-added TSLs. Table IV.5, also for these selected TSLs, provides
NPV results.
Table IV.4--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings for Products Shipped
in 2019-2048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National energy savings
(quads) * National water
TSL Product class -------------------------------- savings (billion
Full-fuel gallons)
Primary cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................. 1 (<=5 ozf)........... 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
3 (>8 ozf)............ 0.032 0.035 41.590
----------------------------------------------------
Total TSL 1.................... ...................... 0.032 0.035 41.590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.................................. 1 (<=5 ozf)........... 0.000 0.000 0.000
[[Page 69894]]
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
3 (>8 ozf)............ 0.093 0.101 119.572
----------------------------------------------------
Total TSL 4.................... ...................... 0.093 0.101 119.572
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.................................. 1 (<=5 ozf)........... 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf) 0.000 0.000 0.000
3 (>8 ozf)............ 0.166 0.180 212.175
----------------------------------------------------
Total TSL 5.................... ...................... 0.166 0.180 212.175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``quad'' = one quadrillion British thermal units.
Table IV.5--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Products
Shipped in 2019-2048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net present value (billion
$2014)
TSL Product class ---------------------------------
7-Percent 3-Percent
discount rate discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................................ 1 (<=5 ozf).................... 0.000 0.000
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)......... 0.000 0.000
3 (>8 ozf)..................... 0.250 0.513
---------------------------------
Total TSL 1.............................. ............................... 0.250 0.513
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B............................................ 1 (<=5 ozf).................... 0.000 0.000
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)......... 0.000 0.000
3 (>8 ozf)..................... 0.718 1.476
---------------------------------
Total TSL 4.............................. ............................... 0.718 1.476
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C............................................ 1 (<=5 ozf).................... 0.000 0.000
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)......... 0.000 0.000
3 (>8 ozf)..................... 1.274 2.619
---------------------------------
Total TSL 4.............................. ............................... 1.274 2.619
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
Table IV.6 provides manufacturer impacts associated with the newly
added TSLs under the sourced materials conversion cost scenario. Table
IV.7, also for these selected TSLs, provides manufacturer impacts under
the fabricated materials conversion cost scenario.
Table IV.6--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Under the Sourced Materials
Conversion Cost Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units No-standards --------------------------------
case A B C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV................................. 2014$ MM............... 8.6 8.4 8.1 8.1
Change in INPV $..................... 2014$ MM............... ............... (0.2) (0.5) (0.5)
Change in INPV %..................... %...................... ............... (2.5) (5.5) (6.0)
Product Conversion Costs............. 2014$ MM............... ............... 0.4 0.8 0.8
Capital Conversion Costs............. 2014$ MM............... ............... ......... 0.1 0.1
Total Investment Required............ 2014$ MM............... ............... 0.4 0.9 0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69895]]
Table IV.7--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Under the Fabricated Materials
Conversion Cost Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units No-standards --------------------------------
case A B C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV................................. 2014$ MM............... 8.6 8.0 7.6 7.5
Change in INPV $..................... 2014$ MM............... ............... (0.6) (0.9) (1.1)
Change in INPV %..................... %...................... ............... (6.5) (11.1) (12.6)
Product Conversion Costs............. 2014$ MM............... ............... 0.4 0.8 0.8
Capital Conversion Costs............. 2014$ MM............... ............... 0.4 0.6 0.8
Total Investment Required............ 2014$ MM............... ............... 0.8 1.4 1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Public Participation
DOE is interested in receiving comments on all aspects of the data
and analysis presented in the NODA and supporting documentation that
can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/54.
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
notice no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this notice. Interested parties may submit comments, data,
and other information using any of the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will only be viewable to
DOE Building Technologies staff. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail will
also be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in
which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in portable document format (PDF)
(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in
English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should
not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if
possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 and 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two
well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked ``confidential''
including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy
of the document marked ``non-confidential'' with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential status of the information and
treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received,
[[Page 69896]]
including any personal information provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 5, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-28675 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
