80 FR 72608 - Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 224 (November 20, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 224 (November 20, 2015)
| Page Range | 72608-72616 | |
| FR Document | 2015-29676 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 224 (Friday, November 20, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 72608-72616] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-29676] ======================================================================== 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. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules [[Page 72608]] 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); withdrawal and republication. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is withdrawing and republishing the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2015 (80 FR 69888) due to errors in that published document. DOE is republishing this document in its entirety. DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the commercial prerinse spray valve (CPSV) energy conservation standards rulemaking on July 9, 2015. In response to comments on the NOPR, DOE has revised its analyses. This NODA announces the availability of those updated analyses and results, and gives interested parties an opportunity to comment on these analyses and submit additional data. The NODA analysis is publicly available on the DOE Web site. DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NODA submitted no later than December 4, 2015. See section IV, ``Public Participation,'' for details. ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the NODA for Energy Conservation Standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, and provide docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD31. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: SprayValves2014STD0027@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. 3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. No faxes will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV of this document (``Public Participation''). Docket: 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: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section IV, ``Public Participation,'' for further information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.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: SprayValves2014STD0027@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) 586-9496. Email: Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. 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 III. Results of the Economic Analyses A. Economic Impacts on Consumers B. Economic Impacts on the Nation C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers IV. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Background DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves (CPSVs) on July 9, 2015 (CPSV NOPR). 80 FR 39485. The CPSV NOPR 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 on various aspects of the CPSV NOPR. In response to these comments, DOE has revised the analyses presented in the CPSV NOPR. This notice of data availability (NODA) announces the [[Page 72609]] availability of those updated analyses and results and invites interested parties to submit comments on these analyses or additional data. DOE may further revise the analysis presented in this rulemaking based on any new or updated information or data it obtains during the course of the rulemaking. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any additional data or information that may improve the analysis. II. 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 spreadsheet tools used in preparing these analyses are available at: http://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 (ELs) 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 ELs associated with 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; \1\ 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) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in DOE's rulemaking docket to amend energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves (Docket No. EERE- 2014-BT-STD-0027, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). This particular notation refers to a comment from Chicago Faucets on pp. 1-2 of document number 6 in the docket. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 the 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 shower-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, 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, 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. 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 engineering spreadsheet accompanying this NODA. 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.\2\ 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.\3\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ DOE compliance certification data for commercial prerinse spray valves available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/; EPA WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Supporting Statement. Version 1.0 available at http://www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/prsv_final.html; Food Service Technology Center test data for prerinse spray valves available at www.fishnick.com/equipment/sprayvalves/. \3\ 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 units 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 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 [[Page 72610]] 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. Product class 1 includes units with spray force less than or equal to 5 ounce-force (ozf), product class 2 includes units with spray force greater than 5 ozf but less than or equal to 8 ozf, and product class 3 includes units with spray force 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) 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 comments on a number of assumptions in the engineering analysis presented in the NOPR. In response, DOE conducted additional testing of CPSV units to gather more data on the range of CPSV products available in the market and updated a number of the assumptions in the NOPR engineering analysis. 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. Although DOE has observed that for product classes 1 and 2 there are currently no CPSV units at the current federal standard flow rate of 1.6 gpm, DOE acknowledges that such units may exist in the market. Therefore, DOE updated the baseline flow rates for product class 1 and 2 to be the current federal standard flow rate of 1.6 gpm, consistent with the baseline for product class 3. Because the baseline levels for product class 1 and 2 were updated, DOE redefined EL 1 to represent the least efficient CPSV unit within each product class (i.e., the market minimum). DOE defined the market minimum levels 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 identified the market minimum to be 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 identified the market minimum level to be 1.20 gpm, which is the intersection of the flow rate-spray force linear relationship and the 8.0 ozf spray force bound. Based on new test data, DOE revised the maximum technologically-feasible levels (i.e., max-tech) 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 intermediate flow rates for product classes 1 and 2 to reflect a 15 percent and 25 percent improvement, respectively, over the market minimum efficiency. Table II.1 through Table II.3 provide the updated ELs for all product classes. Table II.1--Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 1 [Spray force <= 5 ozf] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Efficiency level Description Flow rate gpm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Baseline....................... Current Federal 1.60 standard. Level 1........................ Market minimum......... 1.00 Level 2........................ 15% improvement over 0.85 market minimum. Level 3........................ 25% improvement over 0.75 market minimum. Level 4........................ Maximum technologically- 0.62 feasible (max-tech). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table II.2--Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 2 [5 ozf < Spray force <= 8 ozf] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Efficiency level Description Flow rate gpm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Baseline....................... Current Federal 1.60 standard. [[Page 72611]] Level 1........................ Market minimum......... 1.20 Level 2........................ 15% improvement over 1.02 market minimum. Level 3........................ 25% improvement over 0.90 market minimum. Level 4........................ Maximum technologically- 0.73 feasible (max-tech). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table II.3--Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 3 [Spray force > 8 ozf] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Efficiency level Description Flow rate gpm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Baseline....................... Current Federal 1.60 standard. Level 1........................ 10% improvement over 1.44 baseline. Level 2........................ WaterSense level; 20% 1.28 improvement over baseline. Level 3........................ Maximum technologically- 1.13 feasible (max-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 amended 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 ELs considered as they are used in the field, (3) the operating cost of commercial prerinse spray valves (e.g., energy and water costs), (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 EL 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 EL. 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). In this NODA, DOE provides results for a total of five TSLs, one of which uses an alternative shipments scenario. TSLs 1 through 4 utilize a default shipments scenario similar to the shipments scenario presented in the NOPR, while TSL 4a utilizes the alternative shipments scenario. The default and alternative shipments scenarios are discussed later in this section. The TSLs analyzed in this NODA are shown in Table II.4. These TSLs were chosen based on the following criteria: TSL 1 represents the first EL above the market minimum for each product class. That is, for product classes 1 and 2, TSL 1 represents EL 2 which is a 15 percent savings above the market minimum. For product class 3, TSL 1 represents EL 1 which is a 10 percent savings above the market minimum (which is also the Federal standard level). TSL 2 represents the second EL above market minimum for each product class. That is, for product classes 1 and 2, TSL 2 represents EL 3 which is a 25 percent savings above the market minimum. For product class 3, TSL 3 represents the WaterSense level, or 20 percent savings above the market minimum (i.e., the Federal standard). TSL 3 represents the minimum flow rates for each product class that would not induce consumers to switch product classes as a result of a standard at those flow rates (as discussed in the CPSV NOPR), and retains shower-type designs. That is, DOE selected the lowest flow rates that would allow consumers to maintain provided utility without purchasing units from a different product class. As discussed in section II.A, DOE believes that spray force and flow rate are strongly correlated and that specific flow rate-spray force combinations represent distinct utility in the market. Therefore, DOE analyzed TSL 3, which exhibits no [[Page 72612]] product class switching, as the TSL that maintains customer utility and availability of products in the marketplace. TSL 4 represents max-tech for all product classes under the default shipments scenario, which assumes the total volume of shipments does not change as a function of the standard level selected. Consumers in product classes 1 and 2 would purchase a compliant CPSV model with flow rates most similar to the flow rate they would purchase in the absence of a standard. This TSL assumes that purchasers of shower-type commercial prerinse spray valves would transition to single orifice CPSV models but recognizes that the utility or usability of compliant CPSV models in those applications may be impacted. TSL 4a represents max-tech for all product classes under an alternative shipments scenario. Since the utility of single-orifice CPSV models may not be equivalent in some applications that previously used shower-type CPSV, this alternative shipments scenario analyzes the case where, rather than accepting the decreased usability of a compliant CPSV model, consumers of shower-type units instead exit the CPSV market and purchase faucets, which have a maximum flow rate of 2.2 gpm under the current federal standard. Thus, shipments of compliant CPSV models are much lower under this TSL and water consumption higher due to increased faucet shipments. Table II.4--Efficiency Levels by Product Class and TSL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TSL Product class 1 Product class 2 Product class 3 Shipments scenario ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1............................ 2 2 1 Default. 2............................ 3 3 2 Default. 3............................ 1 1 2 Default. 4............................ 4 4 3 Default. 4a........................... 4 4 3 Alternate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reported NIA results, in section III.B, reflect the additional testing of units DOE conducted after the NOPR (as discussed in section II.A), and include updated product allocations by product class and EL, as well as updated data sources. DOE calculated NES, NWS, and NPV for each TSL as the difference between a no-new-standards case scenario (without amended standards) and the standards case scenario (with amended 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., includes 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. Under the alternative shipments scenario, DOE accounts for the energy and water use of CPSV models that remain within the scope of this rule and also accounts for the change in energy or water use for consumers that chose to exit the CPSV market, and instead purchase faucets, as a result of the standard. As a result, realized savings resulting from TSL 4a are reduced compared to savings for TSL 4 under the default shipments scenario. To calculate the NES, NWS, and NPV, DOE projected future shipments and efficiency distributions (for each TSL) for each CPSV product class. After further research and consideration of public comments regarding product shipments (T&S, 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 relative to product classes 1 and 2 in the default shipments scenario, and the modeling of an alternative shipments scenario where consumers of shower-type CPSV models do not purchase compliant CPSV models in the standards case and, instead, leave the CPSV market altogether and purchase faucets. 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, see Table III.4 and Table III.5. 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 EL. The GRIM uses this information in conjunction with inputs from other analyses including MPCs from the engineering analysis, shipments from the shipments analysis, and price trends from the 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, and by a change in the number of shipments. 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 and in the standards case. DOE examines a range of possible impacts on industry by modeling scenarios with various levels of investment. III. Results of the Economic Analyses A. Economic Impacts on Consumers Table III.1 through Table III.3 provide LCC and PBP results for all ELs and the corresponding TSLs discussed in section II.C. [[Page 72613]] Table III.1--Product Class 1 LCC and PBP Results -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product class 1 (spray force <= 5 ozf) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average costs 2014$ Efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback TSL level First year's Lifetime period years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --...................................................... 0 76 780 3,566 3,643 0.0 3....................................................... 1 76 487 2,229 2,305 0.0 1....................................................... 2 76 414 1,895 1,971 0.0 2....................................................... 3 76 366 1,672 1,748 0.0 4, 4a................................................... 4 76 302 1,382 1,458 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The average discounted LCC for each EL is calculated assuming that all purchases are for equipment only with that EL. This allows the LCCs for each EL to be compared under the same conditions. Table III.2--Product Class 2 LCC and PBP Results -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product class 2 (spray force > 5 ozf and <= 8 ozf) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average costs 2014$ Efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback TSL level First year's Lifetime period years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --...................................................... 0 76 780 3,566 3,643 0.0 3....................................................... 1 76 585 2,675 2,751 0.0 1....................................................... 2 76 497 2,274 2,350 0.0 2....................................................... 3 76 439 2,006 2,082 0.0 4, 4a................................................... 4 76 356 1,627 1,704 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The average discounted LCC for each EL is calculated assuming that all purchases are for equipment only with that EL. This allows the LCCs for each EL to be compared under the same conditions. Table III.3--Product Class 3 LCC and PBP Results -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product class 3 (spray force > 8 ozf) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average costs 2014$ Efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback TSL level First year's Lifetime period years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --...................................................... 0 76 780 3,566 3,643 0.0 1....................................................... 1 76 702 3,210 3,286 0.0 2, 3.................................................... 2 76 624 2,853 2,929 0.0 4 **.................................................... 3 76 551 2,519 2,595 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The average discounted LCC for each EL is calculated assuming that all purchases are for equipment only with that EL. This allows the LCCs for each EL to be compared under the same conditions. ** LCC results are not presented for TSL 4a since the analysis assumes those consumers have left the CPSV market. B. Economic Impacts on the Nation Table III.4 provides energy and water impacts associated with each TSL. Table III.5 provides NPV results. Table III.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 Primary FFC gal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1............................... 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.008 0.009 10.831 2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.113 0.123 144.916 ozf). 3 (>8 ozf)........ (0.082) (0.089) (105.275) ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL TSL 1....... 0.039 0.043 50.471 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 72614]] 2............................... 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.008 0.009 10.831 2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.244 0.264 311.926 ozf). 3 (>8 ozf)........ (0.165) (0.179) (210.875) ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL TSL 2....... 0.087 0.095 111.882 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3............................... 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.000 0.000 0.000 ozf). 3 (>8 ozf)........ 0.093 0.101 119.572 ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL TSL 3....... 0.093 0.101 119.572 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4............................... 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.059 0.064 75.815 2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.196 0.212 250.516 ozf). 3 (>8 ozf)........ (0.092) (0.100) (118.272) ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL TSL 4....... 0.163 0.176 208.059 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4a.............................. 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.059 0.064 75.815 2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.196 0.212 250.516 ozf). 3 (>8 ozf)........ (0.463) (0.502) (593.418) ----------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL TSL 4a...... (0.208) (0.226) (267.087) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * quads = quadrillion British thermal units. Table III.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 3-Percent discount rate rate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1......................................... 1 (<=5 ozf)................. $0.067 $0.137 2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)...... $0.892 $1.828 3 (>8 ozf).................. ($0.656) ($1.342) --------------------------------------- TOTAL TSL 1................. $0.303 $0.623 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2......................................... 1 (<=5 ozf)................. $0.067 $0.137 2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)...... $1.924 $3.943 3 (>8 ozf).................. ($1.319) ($2.699) --------------------------------------- TOTAL TSL 2................. $0.672 $1.381 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3......................................... 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 3................. $0.718 $1.476 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4......................................... 1 (<=5 ozf)................. $0.473 $0.968 2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)...... $1.539 $3.156 3 (>8 ozf).................. ($0.763) ($1.557) --------------------------------------- TOTAL TSL 4................. $1.249 $2.568 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4a *...................................... 1 (<=5 ozf)................. $0.473 $0.968 2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)...... $1.539 $3.156 3 (>8 ozf).................. ($3.616) ($7.421) --------------------------------------- TOTAL TSL 4a................ ($1.604) ($3.297) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * In TSL 4a, DOE assumed that the installed costs for faucets and commercial prerinse spray valves are equal. [[Page 72615]] C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers Table III.6 provides manufacturer impacts under the sourced materials conversion cost scenario. Table III.7 provides manufacturer impacts under the fabricated materials conversion cost scenario. Table III.6--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Under the Sourced Materials Conversion Cost Scenario -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial standard level Units No-new- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- standards case 1 2 3 4 4a -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INPV.............................. 2014$ MM............ 8.6 7.7 7.5 8.0 7.1 5.0 Change in INPV ($)................ 2014$ MM............ .............. (0.8) (1.1) (0.6) (1.5) (3.6) Change in INPV (%)................ %................... .............. (9.9) (12.8) (6.5) (17.4) (41.8) Product Conversion Costs.......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 1.5 1.8 0.8 2.4 2.4 Capital Conversion Costs.......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Investment Required......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 1.6 2.0 1.0 2.6 2.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table III.7--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Under the Fabricated Materials Conversion Cost Scenario -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial standard level Units No-new- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- standards case 1 2 3 4 4a -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INPV.............................. 2014$ MM............ 8.6 7.1 6.7 7.4 6.2 4.1 Change in INPV ($)................ 2014$ MM............ .............. (1.5) (1.8) (1.1) (2.4) (4.5) Change in INPV (%)................ %................... .............. (17.5) (21.4) (13.1) (28.0) (52.3) Product Conversion Costs.......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 1.5 1.8 0.8 2.4 2.4 Capital Conversion Costs.......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.2 Total Investment Required......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 2.3 2.8 1.6 3.6 3.6 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Public Participation While DOE is not requesting comments on specific portions of the analysis, 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. [[Page 72616]] 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. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. 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, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of data availability. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 16, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. 2015-29676 Filed 11-19-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
![72608
Proposed Rules Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 224
Friday, November 20, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of
contains notices to the public of the proposed www.regulations.gov. Follow the Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
issuance of rules and regulations. The instructions for submitting comments. and Renewable Energy, Building
purpose of these notices is to give interested 2. Email: SprayValves2014STD0027@ Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
persons an opportunity to participate in the ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number Independence Avenue SW.,
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
and/or RIN in the subject line of the Washington, DC 20585–0121.
rules.
message. Submit electronic comments Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email:
in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, SprayValves2014STD0027@
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY or ASCII file format, and avoid the use ee.doe.gov.
of special characters or any form of Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 encryption. Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–STD– U.S. Department of Energy, Building SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
0027] Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
RIN 1904–AD31 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov.
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If For further information on how to
Energy Conservation Standards for possible, please submit all items on a submit a comment, review other
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: CD, in which case it is not necessary to public comments and the docket, or
Availability of Provisional Analysis include printed copies. participate in the public meeting,
Tools 4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 586–2945 or by email:
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Building Technologies Office, 950 Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Renewable Energy, Department of L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Energy. Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
ACTION: Notice of data availability (202) 586–2945. If possible, please Table of Contents
(NODA); withdrawal and republication. submit all items on a CD, in which case I. Background
it is not necessary to include printed II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of copies. the Department of Energy
Energy (DOE) is withdrawing and No faxes will be accepted. For A. Engineering Analysis
republishing the Notice of Data detailed instructions on submitting 1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the
Availability (NODA) published in the comments and additional information NODA
Federal Register on November 12, 2015 B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
on the rulemaking process, see section Analysis
(80 FR 69888) due to errors in that IV of this document (‘‘Public C. National Impact Analysis
published document. DOE is Participation’’). D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
republishing this document in its Docket: The docket, which includes III. Results of the Economic Analyses
entirety. DOE published a notice of Federal Register notices, public meeting A. Economic Impacts on Consumers
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the attendee lists and transcripts, B. Economic Impacts on the Nation
commercial prerinse spray valve (CPSV) comments, and other supporting C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
energy conservation standards documents/materials, is available for IV. Public Participation
rulemaking on July 9, 2015. In response review at www.regulations.gov. All A. Submission of Comments
to comments on the NOPR, DOE has V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
documents in the docket are listed in
revised its analyses. This NODA the www.regulations.gov index. I. Background
announces the availability of those However, some documents listed in the DOE published a notice of proposed
updated analyses and results, and gives index, such as those containing rulemaking (NOPR) proposing amended
interested parties an opportunity to information that is exempt from public energy conservation standards for
comment on these analyses and submit disclosure, may not be publicly commercial prerinse spray valves
additional data. The NODA analysis is available. (CPSVs) on July 9, 2015 (CPSV NOPR).
publicly available on the DOE Web site. A link to the docket Web page can be 80 FR 39485. The CPSV NOPR proposed
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, found at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ new CPSV product classes based on
and information regarding this NODA buildings/appliance_standards/ spray force, and presented results for
submitted no later than December 4, rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100. This Web the engineering analysis, economic
2015. See section IV, ‘‘Public page will contain a link to the docket for analyses, and proposed standard levels.
Participation,’’ for details. this notice on the www.regulations.gov DOE held a public meeting on July 28,
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted site. The www.regulations.gov Web page 2015 to present the CPSV NOPR. At the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
must identify the NODA for Energy will contain simple instructions on how public meeting, and during the
Conservation Standards for commercial to access all documents, including comment period, DOE received
prerinse spray valves, and provide public comments, in the docket. See comments on various aspects of the
docket number EERE–2014–BT–STD– section IV, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for CPSV NOPR.
0027 and/or regulatory information further information on how to submit In response to these comments, DOE
number (RIN) number 1904–AD31. comments through has revised the analyses presented in
Comments may be submitted using any www.regulations.gov. the CPSV NOPR. This notice of data
of the following methods: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: availability (NODA) announces the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Nov 19, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_72832/page/1.svg)
![72610 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
foods and preserving shower-type units, threshold between the two classes at 5.0 currently no CPSV units at the current
which prevent splash-back. ozf. This spray force threshold is federal standard flow rate of 1.6 gpm,
For each of the product classes, DOE corroborated by T&S Brass’s comment to DOE acknowledges that such units may
determined the spray force ranges based the Framework document suggesting a exist in the market. Therefore, DOE
on the CPSV flow rate-spray force linear flow rate cut-off of 0.80 gpm between updated the baseline flow rates for
relationship. Product class 1 includes the ‘‘ultra-low-flow’’ and ‘‘low-flow’’ product class 1 and 2 to be the current
units with spray force less than or equal commercial prerinse spray valves, federal standard flow rate of 1.6 gpm,
to 5 ounce-force (ozf), product class 2 which equates to 5.3 ozf using the flow consistent with the baseline for product
includes units with spray force greater rate-spray force linear relationship. This class 3.
than 5 ozf but less than or equal to 8 ozf, spray force can be conservatively • Because the baseline levels for
and product class 3 includes units with rounded to 5.0 ozf. product class 1 and 2 were updated,
spray force greater than 8 ozf. DOE While DOE acknowledges the DOE redefined EL 1 to represent the
selected 8.0 ozf as the spray force cut- comments from interested parties least efficient CPSV unit within each
off between product class 2 and product regarding DOE’s CPSV product class product class (i.e., the market
class 3 based on test results of structure, DOE maintains that all minimum). DOE defined the market
commercial prerinse spray valves with available data and information from minimum levels to be the higher flow
shower-type spray shapes. DOE testing manufacturers suggests that: (1) Flow rate of either (1) the tested least-efficient
showed that the upper range of the rate and spray force are strongly unit or (2) the theoretical least-efficient
market, in terms of flow rate, correlated, and (2) CPSV units with unit at the intersection of the flow rate-
predominantly includes shower-type different flow rates or spray forces are spray force linear relationship and the
units. DOE found that the lowest tested available in the market and provide spray force bounds. In product class 1,
spray force of any shower-type unit was distinct consumer utility in the different DOE identified the market minimum to
8.1 ozf. Therefore, to maintain the applications those units are designed to be 1.00 gpm, which is a tested unit with
consumer utility provided by shower- serve. Therefore, in this NODA, DOE a flow rate of 0.97 gpm, rounded-up to
type units, DOE selected 8.0 ozf to has maintained the product class a whole number. This is greater than the
differentiate product class 3 units from structure presented in the NOPR, with theoretical flow rate at the intersection
other commercial prerinse spray valves three product classes differentiated by of the flow rate-spray force linear
available on the market. Additionally, spray force. relationship and the spray force bound
this spray force threshold is of 5.0 ozf, which is 0.75 gpm. In product
1. Summary of Engineering Updates for
corroborated by T&S Brass’s comments class 2, DOE identified the market
the NODA
to the Framework document suggesting minimum level to be 1.20 gpm, which
three product classes. T&S Brass In addition to the product class is the intersection of the flow rate-spray
suggested a flow rate cut-off of 1.28 gpm structure, DOE received comments on a force linear relationship and the 8.0 ozf
between the ‘‘low-flow’’ and ‘‘standard’’ number of assumptions in the spray force bound.
commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S engineering analysis presented in the • Based on new test data, DOE
Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) The flow rate-spray NOPR. In response, DOE conducted revised the maximum technologically-
force linear relationship equates 1.28 additional testing of CPSV units to feasible levels (i.e., max-tech) from 0.65,
gpm to 8.5 ozf. This spray force can be gather more data on the range of CPSV 0.97, and 1.24 gpm to 0.62, 0.73, and
conservatively rounded to 8.0 ozf. products available in the market and 1.13 gpm for product class 1, product
DOE selected 5.0 ozf as the spray updated a number of the assumptions in class 2 and product class 3, respectively.
force cut-off between product class 1 the NOPR engineering analysis. • Based on the updates to the
and product class 2 based on DOE’s test Specifically, DOE’s revised updates baseline and max-tech levels, DOE
data and market research, which clearly include the following: updated the intermediate flow rates for
showed a cluster of CPSV units above • Based on new test data, DOE product classes 1 and 2 to reflect a 15
and below that threshold. One cluster of updated the flow rate-spray force percent and 25 percent improvement,
CPSV units had spray force ranges relationship, which is presented in the respectively, over the market minimum
between 4.1 and 4.8 ozf, and the other accompanying engineering spreadsheet. efficiency. Table II.1 through Table II.3
cluster was between 5.5 and 7.7 ozf. • Although DOE has observed that for provide the updated ELs for all product
Therefore, DOE established the product classes 1 and 2 there are classes.
TABLE II.1—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 1
[Spray force ≤ 5 ozf]
Flow rate
Efficiency level Description gpm
Baseline .................................................... Current Federal standard ............................................................................................. 1.60
Level 1 ...................................................... Market minimum ........................................................................................................... 1.00
Level 2 ...................................................... 15% improvement over market minimum .................................................................... 0.85
Level 3 ...................................................... 25% improvement over market minimum .................................................................... 0.75
Level 4 ...................................................... Maximum technologically-feasible (max-tech) ............................................................. 0.62
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE II.2—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 2
[5 ozf < Spray force ≤ 8 ozf]
Flow rate
Efficiency level Description gpm
Baseline .................................................... Current Federal standard ............................................................................................. 1.60
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Nov 19, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_72832/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 72611
TABLE II.2—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 2—Continued
[5 ozf < Spray force ≤ 8 ozf]
Flow rate
Efficiency level Description gpm
Level 1 ...................................................... Market minimum ........................................................................................................... 1.20
Level 2 ...................................................... 15% improvement over market minimum .................................................................... 1.02
Level 3 ...................................................... 25% improvement over market minimum .................................................................... 0.90
Level 4 ...................................................... Maximum technologically-feasible (max-tech) ............................................................. 0.73
TABLE II.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 3
[Spray force > 8 ozf]
Flow rate
Efficiency level Description gpm
Baseline .................................................... Current Federal standard ............................................................................................. 1.60
Level 1 ...................................................... 10% improvement over baseline ................................................................................. 1.44
Level 2 ...................................................... WaterSense level; 20% improvement over baseline ................................................... 1.28
Level 3 ...................................................... Maximum technologically-feasible (max-tech) ............................................................. 1.13
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period any incremental product costs to default shipments scenario similar to
Analysis recover via lower operating costs. the shipments scenario presented in the
For commercial prerinse spray valves, NOPR, while TSL 4a utilizes the
The life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback DOE performed an energy and water use alternative shipments scenario. The
period (PBP) analysis determines the analysis that calculated energy and default and alternative shipments
economic impact of potential standards water use of commercial prerinse spray scenarios are discussed later in this
on individual consumers. The LCC is valves at each EL within each product section.
the total cost of purchasing, installing class identified in the engineering The TSLs analyzed in this NODA are
and operating a commercial prerinse analysis. DOE determined the range of shown in Table II.4. These TSLs were
spray valve over the course of its annual energy consumption and annual chosen based on the following criteria:
lifetime. The LCC analysis compares the water consumption using the flow rate • TSL 1 represents the first EL above
LCC of a commercial prerinse spray of each EL within each product class the market minimum for each product
valve designed to meet possible energy from the engineering analysis, the class. That is, for product classes 1 and
conservation standards with the LCC of average annual operating time, and the 2, TSL 1 represents EL 2 which is a 15
a commercial prerinse spray valve likely energy required to heat a gallon of water percent savings above the market
to be installed in the absence of used at the commercial prerinse spray minimum. For product class 3, TSL 1
amended standards. DOE determines valve. Recognizing that several inputs to represents EL 1 which is a 10 percent
LCCs by considering (1) total installed the determination of consumer LCC and savings above the market minimum
cost to the consumer (which consists of PBP are either variable or uncertain (which is also the Federal standard
manufacturer selling price, distribution (e.g., annual energy consumption, level).
chain markups, and sales taxes), (2) the product lifetime, electricity price, • TSL 2 represents the second EL
range of annual energy consumption of discount rate), DOE conducts the LCC above market minimum for each
commercial prerinse spray valves that and PBP analysis by modeling both the product class. That is, for product
meet each of the ELs considered as they uncertainty and variability in the inputs classes 1 and 2, TSL 2 represents EL 3
are used in the field, (3) the operating using a Monte Carlo simulation and which is a 25 percent savings above the
cost of commercial prerinse spray valves probability distributions. The primary market minimum. For product class 3,
(e.g., energy and water costs), (4) CPSV outputs of the LCC and PBP analysis are TSL 3 represents the WaterSense level,
lifetime, and (5) a discount rate that (1) average LCCs, (2) median PBPs, and or 20 percent savings above the market
(3) the percentage of consumers that minimum (i.e., the Federal standard).
reflects the real consumer cost of capital
experience a net cost for each product • TSL 3 represents the minimum flow
and puts the LCC in present-value
class and EL. The average annual energy rates for each product class that would
terms. not induce consumers to switch product
consumption derived in the LCC
The PBP represents the number of analysis is used as an input to the classes as a result of a standard at those
years needed to recover the typically National Impact Analysis (NIA). flow rates (as discussed in the CPSV
increased purchase price of higher- NOPR), and retains shower-type
efficiency commercial prerinse spray C. National Impact Analysis designs. That is, DOE selected the
valves through savings in operating The NIA estimates the national energy lowest flow rates that would allow
costs. PBP is calculated by dividing the savings (NES), national water savings consumers to maintain provided utility
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
incremental increase in installed cost of (NWS), and the net present value (NPV) without purchasing units from a
the higher efficiency product, compared of total consumer costs and savings different product class. As discussed in
to the baseline product, by the annual expected to result from potential new section II.A, DOE believes that spray
savings in operating costs. In this standards at each trial standard level force and flow rate are strongly
analysis, because more efficient (TSL). In this NODA, DOE provides correlated and that specific flow rate-
products do not cost more than baseline results for a total of five TSLs, one of spray force combinations represent
efficiency products, the PBP is zero, which uses an alternative shipments distinct utility in the market. Therefore,
meaning that consumers do not have scenario. TSLs 1 through 4 utilize a DOE analyzed TSL 3, which exhibits no
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Nov 19, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_72832/page/4.svg)
![72616 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Submitting comments via email, hand generally known by or available from Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff,
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and other sources, (4) whether the Attorney, 999 E Street NW.,
documents submitted via email, hand information has previously been made Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650
delivery, or mail will also be posted to available to others without obligation or (800) 424–9530.
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want concerning its confidentiality, (5) an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
your personal contact information to be explanation of the competitive injury to September 11, 2014, the Commission
publicly viewable, do not include it in the submitting person which would received a Petition for Rulemaking from
your comment or any accompanying result from public disclosure, (6) when Level the Playing Field regarding the
documents. Instead, provide your such information might lose its Commission’s regulation at 11 CFR
contact information in a cover letter. confidential character due to the 110.13(c). That regulation governs the
Include your first and last names, email passage of time, and (7) why disclosure criteria that debate staging organizations
address, telephone number, and of the information would be contrary to (which the petitioner refers to as
optional mailing address. The cover the public interest. ‘‘sponsors’’) use for inclusion in
letter will not be publicly viewable as It is DOE’s policy that all comments candidate debates. The regulation
long as it does not include any may be included in the public docket, requires staging organizations to ‘‘use
comments. without change and as received, pre-established objective criteria to
Include contact information each time including any personal information determine which candidates may
you submit comments, data, documents, provided in the comments (except participate in a debate’’ and further
and other information to DOE. If you information deemed to be exempt from specifies that, for general election
submit via mail or hand delivery/ public disclosure). debates, staging organizations ‘‘shall not
courier, please provide all items on a use nomination by a particular political
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary party as the sole objective criterion to
necessary to submit printed copies. No determine whether to include a
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. The Secretary of Energy has approved candidate in a debate.’’ 11 CFR
Comments, data, and other publication of this notice of data 110.13(c). The petition asks the
information submitted to DOE availability.
electronically should be provided in Commission to amend 11 CFR 110.13(c)
portable document format (PDF)
Issued in Washington, DC, on November in two respects: (1) To preclude
16, 2015. sponsors of general election presidential
(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel,
WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format.
Kathleen B. Hogan, and vice presidential debates from
Provide documents that are not secured, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy requiring that a candidate meet a polling
that are written in English, and that are Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable threshold in order to be included in the
Energy. debate; and (2) to require sponsors of
free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special [FR Doc. 2015–29676 Filed 11–19–15; 8:45 am] general election presidential and vice
characters or any form of encryption BILLING CODE 6450–01–P presidential debates to have a set of
and, if possible, they should carry the objective, unbiased criteria for debate
electronic signature of the author. participation that do not require
Campaign form letters. Please submit FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION candidates to satisfy a polling threshold.
campaign form letters by the originating The Commission published a Notice
organization in batches of between 50 11 CFR Part 110 of Availability seeking comment on the
and 500 form letters per PDF or as one [Notice 2015–11]
petition on November 14, 2014.
form letter with a list of supporters’ Candidate Debates, 79 FR 68137. The
names compiled into one or more PDFs. Candidate Debates Commission received 1264 comments in
This reduces comment processing and response to that notice. One comment,
AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. that of an organization that stages
posting time.
Confidential Business Information. ACTION: Notice of Disposition of Petition presidential and vice presidential
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person for Rulemaking. debates, opposed the petition; the
submitting information that he or she remaining comments either supported
SUMMARY: The Commission announces the petition or took no position thereon.
believes to be confidential and exempt its disposition of a Petition for
by law from public disclosure should The petition and many of the
Rulemaking (‘‘petition’’) filed on comments supporting it argue that a
submit two well-marked copies: One September 11, 2014, by Level the
copy of the document marked staging organization’s requirement that a
Playing Field. The petition asks the candidate meet a polling threshold for
‘‘confidential’’ including all the Commission to amend its regulation on
information believed to be confidential, inclusion in a debate unfairly benefits
candidate debates to revise the criteria major party candidates at the expense of
and one copy of the document marked governing the inclusion of candidates in
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information independent and third party candidates.
presidential and vice presidential As an alternative, the petition and some
believed to be confidential deleted. candidate debates. The Commission is
Submit these documents via email or on of the comments proposed requiring
not initiating a rulemaking at this time. staging organizations to include each
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
DATES: November 20, 2015. candidate who has qualified for the
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it ADDRESSES: The petition and other general election ballot in states that
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
according to its determination. documents relating to this matter are collectively have enough Electoral
Factors of interest to DOE when available on the Commission’s Web site, College votes for the candidate to attain
evaluating requests to treat submitted www.fec.gov/fosers (reference REG the presidency.1 The petition states that
information as confidential include: (1) 2014–06), and in the Commission’s
A description of the items, (2) whether Public Records Office, 999 E Street NW., 1 Specifically, the petitioner proposes that a
Washington, DC 20463. presidential candidate who, at a given date during
and why such items are customarily the election year, has secured ballot access in states
treated as confidential within the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. that collectively have at least 270 Electoral College
industry, (3) whether the information is Robert M. Knop, Assistant General votes (of a total possible 538 votes), could
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Nov 19, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_72832/page/9.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 13:59:13
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 13:59:13
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of data availability (NODA); withdrawal and republication. | |
| Dates | DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NODA submitted no later than December 4, 2015. See section IV, ``Public Participation,'' for details. | |
| 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: [email protected] 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) 586-9496. Email: [email protected] For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 72608 | |
| RIN Number | 1904-AD31 | |
| CFR Citation | 10
CFR
429 10 CFR 431 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR