[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 224 (Friday, November 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72608-72616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: [email protected]. 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: [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].

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