This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.Proposed RulesFederal Register69888 
Vol. 80, No. 218 
Thursday, November 12, 2015 
1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 2All 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). 
3Because 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. 
4The 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. 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 Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mr. 
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email: commercial_ pre-rinse_ spray_ valves@
EE.Doe.Gov. 
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–7935. Email: Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Table of Contents 
I. History of Energy Conservation Standards 
Rulemaking for Commercial Prerinse 
Spray Valves 
II. Current Status III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by 
the Department of Energy 
A. Engineering Analysis 1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the 
NODA 
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 
Analysis 
C. National Impact Analysis D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 
IV. Results of the Economic Analyses 
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers B. Economic Impacts on the Nation C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 
V. Public Participation 
A. Submission of Comments 
I. History of Energy Conservation 
Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves 
Title III, Part B
1of 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.
2These products include 
commercial prerinse spray valves (CPSVs), the subject of this rulemaking.
3 
EPCA, as amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)), and requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to determine whether to amend CPSV standards no later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 
DOE published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NOPR) proposing amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray valves on July 9, 2015 (herein known as ‘‘the CPSV NOPR’’). 80 FR 39486. DOE posted the CPSV NOPR, as well as the complete CPSV NOPR technical support document (TSD), on its Web site.
4The 
NOPR and associated TSD proposed new CPSV product classes based on spray force, and presented results for the engineering analysis, economic analyses, and proposed standard levels. DOE held a public meeting on July 28, 2015 to present the CPSV NOPR. At the public meeting, and during the comment period, DOE received comments that addressed issues raised in the CPSV NOPR. 
II. Current Status 
In response to comments DOE 
received in response to the CPSV NOPR, 
DOE has revised the analyses presented in the CPSV NOPR. This NODA announces the availability of those updated analyses and results and invites interested parties to submit comments or additional data to support DOE’s ongoing CPSV rulemaking. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS69889 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
5DOE compliance certification data for 
commercial prerinse spray valves available at 
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ . 
6EPA 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. 
7Food Service Technology Center test data for 
prerinse spray valves available at www.fishnick.com/equipment/sprayvalves/ . 
8EPA 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). 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
® 
program, and Food Service Technology Center (FSTC) reports.
567Additionally, 
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.
8Therefore, 
DOE concludes that separating commercial prerinse spray valves into product classes based on spray force is justified, because spray force is a performance-related feature that affects consumer utility, and spray force is strongly correlated with flow rate. 
To determine the number of product 
classes, DOE tested and analyzed a wide range of CPSV units on the market, spanning multiple manufacturers, flow rates, and spray shapes. Based on DOE’s test data and additional market research, DOE found that available CPSV models could be differentiated into three distinct spray force ranges. DOE believes that each spray force range represents a specific CPSV application. This conclusion is supported by comments submitted by T&S Brass to the Framework document, suggesting three product classes: (1) An ultra 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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS69890 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
product classes presented in the CPSV 
NOPR. However, based on feedback from interested parties, DOE renames the product classes as product class 1, 2, and 3 instead of using the terminology ‘‘light-duty’’, ‘‘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—E FFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV P RODUCT CLASS 1 
[Spray force ≤ 5 ozf] 
Efficiency level Description Flow rate 
(gpm) 
Level 0 ................... Baseline ............................................................................................. .............................................................. 1.00 
Level 1 ................... 15% improvement over baseline ........................................................................ ............................................. 0.85 
Level 2 ................... 25% improvement over baseline ........................................................................ ............................................. 0.75 
Level 3 ................... Maximum available (‘‘max tech’’) ..................................................................... ............................................... 0.62 
TABLE III.2—E FFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV P RODUCT CLASS 2 
[5 ozf < Spray force ≤ 8 ozf] 
Efficiency level Description Flow rate 
(gpm) 
Level 0 ................... Baseline ............................................................................................. .............................................................. 1.20 
Level 1 ................... 15% improvement over baseline ........................................................................ ............................................. 1.02 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS69891 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE III.2—E FFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV P RODUCT CLASS 2—Continued 
[5 ozf < Spray force ≤ 8 ozf] 
Efficiency level Description Flow rate 
(gpm) 
Level 2 ................... 25% improvement over baseline ........................................................................ ............................................. 0.90 
Level 3 ................... Maximum available (‘‘max tech’’) ..................................................................... ............................................... 0.73 
TABLE III.3—E FFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV P RODUCT CLASS 3 
[Spray force > 8 ozf] 
Efficiency level Description Flow rate 
(gpm) 
Level 0 ................... Baseline ............................................................................................. .............................................................. 1.60 
Level 1 ................... 10% improvement over baseline ........................................................................ ............................................. 1.44 
Level 2 ................... WaterSense Level; 20% improvement over baseline ...................................................... ............................... 1.28 
Level 3 ................... Maximum available (max-tech) ......................................................................... .............................................. 1.13 
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—E FFICIENCY LEVELS BY  
PRODUCT CLASS AND TSL 
TSL Product 
class 1 Product 
class 2 Product 
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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS69892 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
efficiency distributions (for each TSL) 
for each CPSV product class. After further research and consideration of public comments regarding product shipments (T&S, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 81), DOE updated its shipments projections from the NOPR to more accurately characterize the CPSV market. The most significant update was allocating more of the overall market share to product class 3 products relative to product classes 1 and 2. Other inputs to the NIA include the estimated CPSV lifetime, final installed costs, and average annual energy and water consumption per unit from the LCC. For detailed NIA results for the newly-added TSLs, see Table IV.4 and Table IV.5. 
The purpose of this NODA is to notify 
industry, manufacturers, consumer groups, efficiency advocates, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to the provisional analysis of potential energy conservation standards for commercial 
prerinse spray valves. Stakeholders should contact DOE for any additional information pertaining to the analyses 
performed for this NODA. 
D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 
For the manufacturer impact analysis 
(MIA), DOE used the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) to assess the economic impact of potential standards on CPSV manufacturers. DOE developed key industry average financial parameters for the GRIM using publicly available data from corporate annual reports. Additionally, DOE used this and other publicly available information to estimate and account for the aggregate industry investment in capital expenditures and research and development required to produce compliant products at each efficiency level. 
The GRIM uses this information in 
conjunction with inputs from other 
analyses including manufacturer production costs from the engineering analysis; shipments from the shipments analysis; and price trends from the national impact analysis (NIA) to model industry annual cash flows from the base year through the end of the analysis period. The primary quantitative output of this model is the industry net present value (INPV), which DOE calculates as the sum of industry cash flows discounted to the present day using industry specific weighted average costs of capital. 
Standards affect INPV by requiring 
manufacturers to make investments in manufacturing capital and product development. Under potential standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose a portion of their INPV, which is calculated as the difference between INPV in the no-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—P RODUCT CLASS 1 LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS  
Product Class 1 
(spray force ≤ 5 ozf) 
TSL Efficiency level Average costs 
(2014$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(years) Installed cost First year’s 
operating cost Lifetime 
operating cost LCC * 
A,B,C ........................................................ 0 76 487 2,229 2,305 0.0 
1 76 414 1,895 1,971 0.0 
2 76 366 1,672 1,748 0.0 
3 76 302 1,382 1,458 0.0 
Product Class 1 
(spray force ≤ 5 ozf) 
TSL Efficiency level Life-cycle cost savings ** 
% of customers 
that experience 
net cost Average 
savings 
(2014$) 
A,B,C .......................................................................................................................... ............ 0 0 0 
1 0 334 
2 0 557 
3 0 352 
TABLE IV.2—P RODUCT CLASS 2 LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS  
Product Class 2 
(spray force > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf) 
TSL Efficiency level Average costs 
(2014$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(years) Installed cost First year’s 
operating cost Lifetime 
operating cost LCC * 
A,B,C ........................................................ 0 76 585 2,675 2,751 0.0 
1 76 497 2,274 2,350 0.0 
2 76 439 2,006 2,082 0.0 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS69893 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE IV.2—P RODUCT CLASS 2 LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS —Continued 
Product Class 2 
(spray force > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf) 
TSL Efficiency level Average costs 
(2014$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(years) Installed cost First year’s 
operating cost Lifetime 
operating cost LCC * 
3 76 356 1,627 1,704 0.0 
Product Class 2 
(spray force > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf) 
TSL Efficiency level Life-cycle cost savings ** 
% of customers 
that experience 
net cost Average 
savings 
(2014$) 
A,B,C .......................................................................................................................... ............ 0 0 0 
1 0 401 
2 0 446 
3 0 825 
TABLE IV.3—P RODUCT CLASS 3 LCC ANDPBP R ESULTS  
Product Class 3 
(spray force > 8 ozf) 
TSL Efficiency level Average costs 
(2014$) Simple 
payback 
period 
(years) Installed cost First year’s 
operating cost Lifetime 
operating cost LCC * 
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) 
TSL Efficiency level Life-cycle cost savings ** 
% of customers 
that experience 
net cost Average 
savings 
(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—C OMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES : CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR  
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 
TSL Product class National energy savings 
(quads) * National water 
savings 
(billion gallons) Primary Full-fuel 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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS69894 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE IV.4—C OMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES : CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR  
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048—Continued 
TSL Product class National energy savings 
(quads) * National water 
savings 
(billion gallons) Primary Full-fuel cycle 
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—C OMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES : CUMULATIVE NETPRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR  
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048 
TSL Product class Net present value 
(billion $2014) 
7-Percent 
discount rate 3-Percent 
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—M ANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES UNDER THE SOURCED  
MATERIALS CONVERSION COSTSCENARIO  
Units No-standards 
case Trial standard level 
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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS69895 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE IV.7—M ANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES UNDER THE FABRICATED  
MATERIALS CONVERSION COSTSCENARIO  
Units No-standards 
case Trial standard level 
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, 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS69896 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 218 / Thursday, November 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
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 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Aviation Administration 
14 CFR Part 39 
[Docket No. FAA–2015–4811; Directorate 
Identifier 2015–NM–104–AD] 
RIN 2120–AA64 
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 
Inc. Airplanes 
AGENCY : Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), DOT. 
ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). 
SUMMARY : We propose to adopt a new 
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet 
Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL– 600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of a number of incorrectly calibrated angle of attack (AOA) transducers installed in the stall protection system. This proposed AD would require replacement of affected AOA transducers. We are proposing this AD to detect and replace incorrectly calibrated AOA transducers; incorrect calibration of the transducers could result in late activation of the stick pusher. 
DATES : We must receive comments on 
this proposed AD by December 28, 2015. 
ADDRESSES : You may send comments, 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods: 
•Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. 
•Fax: 202–493–2251. 
•Mail: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. •Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
For service information identified in 
this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Co ˆte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, 
Que´bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 
514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet 
http://www.bombardier.com. You may 
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 
Examining the AD Docket 
You may examine the AD docket on 
the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov by searching for 
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 4811; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 
ADDRESSES section. Comments will 
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : 
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7318; fax 516–794–5531. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Comments Invited 
We invite you to send any written 
relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the 
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 
FAA–2015–4811; Directorate Identifier 2015–NM–104–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments. 
We will post all comments we 
receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. 
Discussion 
Transport Canada Civil Aviation 
(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 
for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2015–18, effective July 16, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL– 600–2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL–600–2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL–600–2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL– 600–2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states: 
It was discovered that a number of [angle 
of attack] AOA transducers installed on 
Bombardier CL–600–2C10, CL–600–2D15, CL–600–2D24, and CL–600–2E25 aeroplanes were incorrectly calibrated due to a quality control problem at both the production and repair facilities. Incorrect calibration of the AOA transducer could result in a late activation of the stick pusher. 
This [Canadian] AD mandates the 
replacement of the incorrectly calibrated AOA transducer. 
You may examine the MCAI in the 
AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov by searching for 
and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 4811. 
Related Service Information Under 1 
CFR Part 51 
Bombardier, Inc. has issued 
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA–27– 069, dated March 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacement of the transducers with correctly calibrated AOA transducers. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the 
ADDRESSES section of 
this NPRM. 
FAA’s Determination and Requirements 
of This Proposed AD 
This product has been approved by 
the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:34 Nov 10, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS