[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: http://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 
[email protected].

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: [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) 586-7935. Email: [email protected].

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: 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 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. http://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